Despite the fact that necoliberalism brings poor economic growth, inadequate availability of jobs and career opportunities, and
the concentration of economic and social rewards in the hands of a privileged upper class resistance to it, especially at universities,
remain weak to non-existent.
The first sign of high levels of dissatisfaction with neoliberalism was the election of Trump (who, of course, betrayed all his elections
promises, much like Obama before him).
Delegitimization of neoliberal ideology after 2008 was not complete. myth about the efficient and effective functioning of the market
(ideological legitimization) was discredited by still was propagated by all major MSM. Wealth redistribution practices (redistribution
of wealth up) are still continued to be socially acceptable even after 2008 crisis.
It is clear why the resistance to neoliberalism remains weak -- the level of surveillance of population after 2008 became equal
or exceed the level practiced by STASI.
Strategies and actions of proponents of neoliberals also adapted to the situation. They have shifted neoliberal propaganda from the sphere of labor
to that of the market creating a situation in which the idea of the superiority and desirability of the market is shared by the
majority of population, including some oppositional groups.
Even emancipatory movements such as women, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have espoused individualistic, competition-centered,
and meritocratic views typical of neoliberal discourses. They served as a wedge to split working class and lower middle class and to
prevent forming a unified opposition to the neoliberal state. Moreover, MSM has been banned from publishing views of oppositional groups and movements.
However, as systemic instability of neoliberalism is impossible to hide. Given the weakness
of opposition, neoliberal forces and financial oligarchy attempts to mitigate
socio-economic contradictions. The crisi of neoliberal ideology since 2008 and unavailability of strong arguments and ideological mechanisms to legitimize neoliberal arrangements motivates dominant
social actors to make marginal concessions to oppressed group and fisrt of all to blue-collar workers, which considered by
neoliberals the most dangerous. These changes, however, will not alter the
corporate co-optation and distortion of discourses that historically nutered left opposition t neoliberalism in the USA.
As contradictions continue to exist and their manifestations increase in severity, however,
their unsustainability will represent a real possibility for the creation of a viable anti-neoliberal movement, despite the power of
financial oligarchy. Brexit and recent revolt in France are two confirmation of this fact.
The Literature on the Crisis of Neoliberalism
The argument of the
Ыюк is based on, and adds to, the
now vast literature on the crisis of neoliberalism. The Great Recession of 2007-08 engendered a number of stuthes that proposed the
thesis of the unsustainability and imminent end of the neoliberal regime. Consequendy, however, as neoliberalism did not end, a wave
of works stressed its enduring power. This literature can be organized into two groups.
One of them contains analyses that stress neoliberalism’s economic contradictions (e.g., Bellamy Foster and McChesney 2012; Dumenil and Levy 2011; Kotz
2015; Lapavitsas 2012; Ovcrbcck and van Apcldoom 2012; Stieglitz 2013, 2016).
The primary strength of these works rests on the accuracy
of their analyses of the economic limitations of neoliberalism. Emphasizing the so-called retreat of the state, they contend that
while social programs have been drastically reduced and the economy deregulated, the state remains a necessary actor in the functioning of
the "free" market. Yet, the intent to address crises through the creation of new markets creates disequilibria that the state cannot
control.
The gist of these works is that the economic proposal of neoliberalism is now exhausted.
Possible Alternatives
Among
the stuthes on the crisis of neoliberalism, the most interesting group is the group of researchers which investigate the the issue of post-neoliberalism.
Which entrain proposing and analyzing possible alternatives to the
current situation.
This group is exemplified by the works of Kotz (2015) and Crouch (2011, 2013). A supporter of the idea that neoliberalism
has reached its final crisis, the objective of Kotz’s cconomic-oricntcd study is to uncover the roots of the unsustainability of neoliberalism.
He contends that this is a structural crisis of capitalism for it cannot be resolved cither through the implementation of new' forms
of financial regulation or traditional Keynesian policies.
Neoliberalism’s growing inequality, large asset bubbles, and speculative
and risk-seeking financial activities gave rise to the long-term trends that generated the 2007-08 crisis and the post-crisis stagnation.
These conditions, he contends, cannot be changed because they constitute the essence of the neoliberal model that replaced Fordism.
In this model, reduced wages and restructured social spending engendered raising profit and stable capital accumulation at first
stage of the development of neoliberalism. However,
they also signified the switch to consumer spending based on personal debt. As a series of financial bubbles begun to emerge in the 1980s
and continued to destabilize the economy in the following decades, wages and social spending did not grow allowing the destabilizing
growth of personal debt. Once the expansion of debt reached unsustainable levels, the crisis emerged in all its seriousness.
Given the
fact that, at least in the USA, different administrations have not been able to alter the power of financial actors and the conditions
that allow their domination of the economy, the current instability is destined to continue. Yet, for Kotz, four future scenarios are
possible. The first consists of the reproduction of the status quo with the continuation of neoliberalism. The second involves the introduction
of a “business regulated capitalism” which rests on the corporate regulation of the economy. The third scenario calls for the establishment
of a social democratic capitalism reminiscent of the Fordist regime.
The final scenario consists of the establishment of a socialist
experiments in Latin America (Venezuela and Bolivia). Both are interesting developments, but as a scenarios for the future
displacement of neoliberalism they do not look too attractive.
Accordingly, the proposition of these alternatives ultimately
remains highly abstract.
Underscoring the social and ideological dimensions of the crisis of
neoliberalism, the analysis proposed by Collin Crouch (2011, 2013) indicates that, despite the financial collapse of 2007-08, neoliberalism has grown
stronger for the post-crisis reorganization of the economy. This paradoxical result has been based on
the continuous application of the neoliberal ideology to the solutions for the crisi of 2008.
Due to that market
principles continue to represent the dominant standards for the functioning
of virtually all social, political, and economic institutions while monetary
transactions and payments represent the moral foundations of society. While neoliberals claim that the state should not address socio-economic issues,
the
intervention of the state is fundamental for the existence and domination of
neoliberalism.
Moreover, he contends, the dominant idea that the government must adapt to the market in order to be effective and efficient conceals a
reality in which governments arc actually adapting to the interests of large
corporations. Rather than the marketization of the economy and society,
neoliberalism consists of the corporatization of the economy and society.
In
the neoliberal society, corporations dominate by defining the ideological
conditions of its functioning and allowing debt to be the dominant form
through which people arc controlled. As this domination is difficult to
oppose, the contradictions of corporate neoliberalism are severe and the
system experiences a crisis. While Crouch \icws the limits of the political left
as the major obstacle to the construction of a substantive alternative, he
hopes that forces in the civil society will create an effective opposition. In his
view, the real alternative to neoliberalism is represented by the construction
of a social democratic society. As in the case of the analysis of Kotz, however,
it remains unclear how' a social democratic system could be transformed from
a hope into an attainable outcome.
Thk Limits of the Left and Suggestions
to Overcome Them
Another group of scholars provides similar critiques of the characteristics of
neoliberalism but adds by focusing on the limits of the left opposition and
suggesting corrections to its anti-ncolibcral strategics. Philip Mirowski
(2014; see also Mirowski and Plehwe 2009) is an exemplary' representative
of this group. Like in the case of Crouch, his analysis of the ideological
characteristics of neoliberalism is incisive and, like in the ease of Kotz, his
review of the economic conditions that destabilize neoliberalism is to the
point. Also like Crouch, Mirowski belongs to that group of critics that
underscore how the crisis of 2007-08 and the Great Recession that followed did not alter the economic and ideological domination of neolibcralism. Central among the points that he makes is his argument about the
limits of the economic theory of the traditional left. In particular, he criticizes mainstream left economists, such as Nobel laureates Paul Krugnian
and Joseph Stiglitz, for proposing established forms of state directed economic intervention to rectify the problems generated by the implementation of neoliberalism. He contends that the state is a ncolibcral state and, as
such, docs not, by itself, represents an alternative to neoliberalism.
Dwelling on a detailed analysis of the evolution of neoliberal theory, he
stresses the constructionist character of neoliberalism. For ncolibcrals,
Mirowski points out, markets are socially created and the role of the state is
to maintain and create new markets. Simultaneously, the so-called impartiality of the functioning of the market argued by neoliberals is, for
Mirowski, one of the most deceiving elements of this theory, for ncolibcralism constructed a system that not only benefits exclusively the upper
class but also effectively justifies this outcome. By stressing the effectiveness
of competition and the desirability of individual action, socio-economic
inequality, concentration and centralization of capital, and the political and
social domination of the upper class are presented as normal outcomes
of the functioning of the free market.
Employing this analysis, Mirowski contends that there is nothing liberal about neoliberalism. The constructionist approach that
neoliberals employhas allowed them to build a system that is illiberal, highly authoritarian, and oppressive.
Additionally, they implemented a system of domination centered on the development of the technology' of the control of the self.
This new system of control gives the illusion of emancipation while the internalization of the ideology of the market and the
fragmentation of social relations work to reproduce neoliberal domination.
In this context, neoliberalism was able to co-opt ideological spaces and discourses that have traditionally been included in the
patrimony of the left and use them as ways to promote the ideology of the market. Faced with these formidable opponents and with
inadequate responses, the crisis of the left is obvious.
For Mirowski, the corrective recommendation is to unmask the pseudo-emancipatory' posture of neoliberalism and move in the
opposite direction. The failure of the Occupy movement, he contends, is precisely legitimization of neoliberalism rests on the
unquestionability of economic rationality'. As contradictions continue to mount and the questioning of the
system is not allowed, this crisis will continue. Resistance, he argues, should
be expected and the left should exercise it at the individual and state levels
for these are all relevant spheres where the power of neoliberalism is
exercised. Concerned with an ideological critique of neoliberalism, Davies
ends up not tackling the issue of the social forces and processes that should
transform the system’s contradictions into substantive opposition.
Neo-Fordist Proposals and the Return to the Nation-State
An additional group of analyses of the crisis of neoliberalism consists of
works that propose a return to regulated capitalism such as the one that
characterized the Fordist era. Authors included in this group contend that
neoliberalism can be opposed by a stronger role played by the nation-state.
As indicated above, left-leaning institutional economists such as Krugman
(2013) and Stiglitz (2013, 2016) have forcefully argued for the introduction of socio-economic reforms centered on Keynesian economics and the
associated state control of capitalism. This neo-Fordist proposal is based on
the denunciation of the significant limits of the neoliberal system. In particular, these authors stress the dangerous consequences created by the
growth of socio-economic inequality. Stiglitz (2013, 2016), for instance,
identifies income inequality as the major characteristic and problem of
neoliberal capitalism.
Contrasting the post-World War II era with the second decade of the twenty-first century, lie stresses that postwar state investment
in productive infrastructure and education created economic opportunities for the middle and working classes. These actions
translated into significant economic expansion, social stability, and gains by members of all classes.
In the case of the contemporary economy and society, conversely, neoliberalism has promoted trickle-down economics that has not
worked bur instead has concentrated wealth in the hands of the upper class
and has engendered economic stagnation, social instability, economic
uncertainty, and lack of jobs and economic opportunities for the rest of
society. Promoted by large tax cuts for the rich, the privatization of gains,
and the socialization of losses, the growth of inequality is a politically
generated process. Because it is a political process rather than an inexorable
law of economics, it can be reversed precisely through political action.
Calling for a return to a lair market system, Stiglitz contends that the state
should implement reforms such as those that would ensure that the rich pay
their fair share of taxes, corporations arc regulated, speculators are con-
trolled, the poor are helped, the middle class is supported, and investment
to improve education and infrastructure is carried out. While this cannot be
a solution for all problems, he concludes, it can bring about diat sense of
hope and dignity that neoliberalism has erased from contemporary society.
Echoing this analysis, Krugman (2013) stresses the importance of state
spending as a solution to the economic problems facing the USA and other
countries. His argument centers on a critiques of austerity policies that
have accompanied neoliberalism.
Austerity has been one of the major
arguments in favor of the reduction of social spending and the elimination
of programs that benefitted the lower and middle classes. Coupled with
inadequate state intervention, such as in the case of the anti-Great
Recession stimulus in the USA, limited state spending prevents a recovery
Or the economy and maintains its current stagnant conditions. As these
neo-Fordist positions have been criticized by neoliberals for not taking into
consideration the continuous high level of state spending and state inefficiency and waste, the major limit of this proposal rests on the lack of
discussion on the very issues that engendered the crisis of Fordism.
Problems such as the fiscal crisis of the state, the capitalist class resistance to
taxation and social spending, and inflation are not addressed. Moreover,
globalization has altered the ability of the nation-state to control the
economy, making the call for a nation-state-centered reform problematic.
The argument about the importance of a nation-state-centered reform
has not been exclusively made in reference to the US state. Addressing the
financial crisis of the EU, Lapavitsas (2013a, b), for instance, contends that
the growth of the financial sector promoted by neoliberalism has engendered instability and the creation of antidemocratic institutions.
In his
opinion, the EU is an instance of a supranational form of the state run by
bureaucrats that have virtual no connections with local constituencies.
Supporting anti-austerity critiques, he views the EU imposed financial
constraints on member countries such as native Greece, Spain, Italy, and
Portugal not only as economically ineffective but also as politically
authoritarian. Democracy, he argues, has been suspended in the name
of the good functioning of the economy. In this context, returning greater
power to the nation-state not only can address some of the economic
problems affecting contemporary society but can also democratize
decision-making processes.
Agreeing with Lapavitsas on the relevance of a return to full national
sovereignty of EU countries and disagreeing with Jurgen Habermas
(2012) and other supporters of the existence of the EU and the Euro,
critical theorist, Streeck (2014) stresses that the crisis of neoliberalism is a
crisis of legitimization. In his view' and since the 1970s, capitalism has
experienced a constant crisis of legitimization that has been addressed
through the implementation of measures that were only temporarily and
partially successful.
The partiality of these measures makes the resolution
of the crisis of legitimization of neoliberalism, he contends, continuous and
particularly difficult to achieve. He argues that the contradictions engendered by state intervention and the social spending of the Fordist era were
temporarily addressed through the creation of inflation.
However, when
inflation translated into the fiscal crisis of the state and the state was not
able to effectively intervene to address the crisis of accumulation, Fordism
dissolved.
Again opposing Habermas (1975), for Streeck the end of
Fordism was not the result of disturbances of the system. But rather it was
engendered by the reaction of the capitalist class against the power held by
labor. In the 1980s, the capitalist class was able to defeat labor and the left
through investment strikes that generated unemployment and devitalized
the effectiveness of traditional forms of opposition. On the strength of this
victory, the establishment of neoliberal measures reignited profit making
through deregulation, tax reforms, and the reduction of social spending.
The ensuing social instability was addressed through the rising of public
debt that, however, reached an unsustainable level in the 1990s. At the
time, the demand for social programs and the issue of working and
middle-class consumption were addressed through the expansion of individual debt promoted by the deregulation of the financial sector. This
solution was, eventually, made ineffective by the 2007-08 crisis that
required massive state intervention. State-promoted quantitative casing
programs and the sustained intervention of central banks avoided the
collapse of the economy.
However, they did not address the
socio-economic instability of the system that continues as inequality, limited growth,
and uncertainty characterize the present situation. Given the
strength of the capitalist class and neoliberal forces, Streeck concludes, a
democratic solution to this new crisis of legitimization appears problematic.
More plausible is the acceptance of the neoliberal separation between
capitalism and democracy that calls for the primacy of market justice over
substantive justice. While cogent, Streeck’s analysis underplays the negative
effects of the system contradictions on the rate of profit and the overall
interests of the capitalist class. As it gives too much power to the capitalist
class, currently unresolved issues such as those associated with the environment, labor under-remuneration, migration, socio-economic instability,
and uncertainty limit the accumulation of capital and have already forced
this class to grant some — albeit limited — concessions to subordinate
groups such as increases in wages, efforts to diminish pollution, and
recognition of the importance of quality production.
Defenders of neoliberalism sophistry
This idea that neoliberalism is too powerful to be defeated is stressed by an
additional group of theorists (e.g., Block and Somers 2014; Brown 2015;
Dardot and Laval 2013). Basing their analyses on the seminal work of
Foucault (2004) and classical critiques of the free functioning of the market
such as that of Polanyi (2001 [1944]), these authors highlight the fundamental tenets of neoliberalism and its significant differences with classical
liberalism.
They try to promote false idea that the self-regulation of the capitalist economy legitimizes neoliberalism. This
sophistry was crashed in 2008.
Another sophistry is that in spirit of classical
laissez-faire, the defenders of neoliberalism try to promote the idea that impersonality of the market justifies its desirability over decisions made
through the discussions and negotiations sanctioned by the polity. They falsely claim that the decisions made through the state apparatus can never be superior to those
that derive from the free functioning of the market. In this context, the
market establishes the true values of ideas and goods, generates a highly
desirable “world without politics,” and makes democracy purely procedural.
For neoliberals, they add, the actions of individuals are paramount.
Another myth promoted by defenders of neoliberalism is the myth of human capital. Individuals, they argue, are endowed with human capital
that they employ not only to compete but also to constantly improve their
competitive skills. Following Foucault, they underscore the novel notion of
labor capital entailed in the neoliberal proposal. If for classical liberals as well as for Marx, labor is exchanged for a wage, for neoliberals the capacity
to labor remains continuously attached to the individual ands constitute their capital. Individuals,
therefore, are required to deploy this capital, but also improve it via training and fining new suitable for them specialties
and occupations, their capacity to labor
the ability to win the competition between atomic individuals in labor market.
As socio-economic and political outcomes depend on individual competition, structural issues such as high inequality are
viewed by apologets of neoliberlaims as secondary at best. Accordingly, for neoliberals, socio-economic
inequality is considered a legitimate outcome of the free functioning of the
market, the result of difference in individual efforts and accomplishments, and an item
that justly rewards those who are meritorious.
As tar as the future of
neoliberalism is concerned, these authors point out that the power of the
ideology of the impartiality of the market, its promise of a world without
politics, and the lack of substantive opposition will allow for the continuous
domination of the neoliberalism.
As for the ease of Streeck, this group of
authors’ analysis of the power of neoliberalism is not accompanied by a
consideration of the fact that its contradictions affect capital accumulation
and promote calls for change not only from subordinate classes but also
from the capitalist class.
Historically connection of neoliberalism and neo-fascism is extremely strong:
one of first experiments in introduction of neoliberal ideology (Pinochet
putsch in Chile) has definite neo-fascist colors.
The worst violence occurred in the first three months of the coup's aftermath,
with the number of suspected leftists killed or "disappeared"
(desaparecidos) soon reaching into the thousand.[6]
In the days immediately following the coup, the Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs informed Henry Kissinger, that the
National Stadium was being used to hold 5,000 prisoners, and as late as
1975, the CIA was still reporting that up to 3,811 prisoners were still being
held in the Stadium.[7]
Amnesty International, reported that as many as 7,000 political prisoners in
the National Stadium had been counted on 22 September 1973.[8]
Nevertheless, it is often quoted in the press, that some 40,000 prisoners were
detained in the Stadium.[9]
Some of the most famous cases of "desaparecidos" are
Charles Horman, a U.S. citizen who was killed during the coup itself,[10]
Chilean songwriter
Víctor
Jara, and the October 1973
Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte) where at least 70 persons
were killed.[11]
Other operations include
Operation Colombo during which hundreds of left-wing activists were murdered
and
Operation Condor, carried out with the security services of other Latin
American dictatorships.
Memorial to victims of the Dirty war in Chile
Following Pinochet's defeat in the 1988 plebiscite, the 1991
Rettig Commission, a multipartisan effort from the Aylwin administration
to discover the truth about the human-rights violations, listed a number of
torture
and
detention centers (such as
Colonia Dignidad,
the ship Esmeralda or
Víctor Jara Stadium), and found that at least 3,200 people were killed or
"disappeared" by the regime.
A later report, the
Valech Report (published in November 2004), confirmed the figure of 3,200
deaths but dramatically reduced the alleged cases of disappearances. It tells
of some 28,000 arrests in which the majority of those detained were
incarcerated and in a great many cases
tortured.[12]
Some 30,000 Chileans were
exiled and received
abroad,[13][14][15]
in particular in
Argentina,
as political refugees; however, they were followed in their exile by the
DINA secret police, in the frame of
Operation Condor which linked South-American dictatorships together against
political opponents.[16]
Some 20,000-40,000 Chilean exiles were holders of passports stamped with the
letter "L" (which stood for lista nacional), identifying them as persona
non grata and had to seek permission before entering the country.[17]
Nevertheless, Chilean Human Rights groups maintain several hundred thousand
were forced into exile.[14]
According to the Latin American Institute on Mental Health and Human Rights
(ILAS),
"situations of extreme trauma" affected about 200,000 persons; this figure includes
individuals killed, tortured (following the
UN definition of torture), or exiled and their immediate relatives.[citation
needed] While more radical groups such as the
Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR) were staunch advocates of a Marxist
revolution, it is currently accepted that the junta deliberately targeted nonviolent
political opponents as well
A court in Chile sentenced, on March 19, 2008, 24 former police officers
in cases of kidnapping, torture and murder that happened just after a
U.S.-backed coup overthrew President
Salvador Allende, a
Socialist,
on September 11, 1973.[18]
Neo-fascist putsch in Chile got stamp of approval personally from Milton Friedman,
who actually was instrumental in moving Chile into neoliberal orbit (Neoliberalism
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):
In 1955, a select group of Chilean students (later known as the Chicago
Boys) were invited to the University of Chicago to pursue postgraduate stuthes
in economics. They worked directly under Friedman and his disciple Arnold
Harberger, while also being exposed to Hayek.
When they returned to Chile in the 1960s, the Chicago Boys began a concerted
effort to spread the philosophy and policy recommendations of the Chicago and
Austrian schools, setting up think tanks and publishing in ideologically sympathetic
media. Under the military dictatorship headed by Pinochet and severe social
repression, the Chicago boys implemented radical economic reform. The latter
half of the 1970s witnessed rapid and extensive privatization, deregulation,
and reductions in trade barriers.
In 1978 policies that would reduce the role of the state and infuse competition
and individualism into areas such as labor relations, pensions, health, and
education were introduced.[2] These policies resulted in widening inequality
as they negatively impacted the wages, benefits and working conditions of Chile's
working class.[49][50] According to Chilean economist Alejandro Foxley,
by the end of Pinochet's reign around 44% of Chilean families were living below
the poverty line.[51] In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein argues that by the
late 1980s the economy had stabilized and was growing, but around 45% of the
population had fallen into poverty while the wealthiest 10% saw their incomes
rise by 83%.[52]
Two decades after it was first used by pro-market intellectuals in the 1960s,
the meaning of neoliberalism changed. Those who regularly used the term neoliberalism
in the 1980s typically applied it in its present-day, radical sense, denoting
market fundamentalism.
In 1990 the military dictatorship ended. Hayek argued that increased economic
freedom had put pressure on the dictatorship over time and increased political
freedom. Many years earlier, in The Road to Serfdom (1944), Hayek had argued
that "economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which
can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for
all our ends."[53] The Chilean scholars Javier Martínez and Alvaro Díaz
reject that argument pointing to the long tradition of democracy in Chile. The
return of democracy had required the defeat of the Pinochet regime though it
had been fundamental in saving capitalism. The essential contribution came from
profound mass rebellions and finally old party elites using old institutional
mechanisms to bring back democracy.[54]
The essence of neoliberalism is
globalization of corporatism, which previously have distinct national boundaries
and some forms of which were rabidly nationalistic (for example German national
socialism). Just imagine a single global state with the capital in Washington with
the typical for such a superstate flow of people to capital and you essentially
catch the essence of the USA elite neoliberal dream -- Pax Americana.
There are also second class cities such as London, Berlin, Tokyo, etc which while
not as attractive are much better then the "deep province", such as Prague, Warsaw
or Sanct-Petersburg. to say nothing about impoverished "countryside" such as Kiev,
Tallin, Riga, Vilnus, etc.
So the flow of people and commodities (and first of all oil) has distinct direction
from the periphery to the center. To keep each country in the line and this flow
of commodities uninterrupted, this "Capitalist International" relies on the part
of national capitalist class and elite which is connected to international corporations
serving the same role as Communist Parties or Communist International. Such as part
is often called Compradors
or Fifth Column of Globalization
And this "international elite" is even more responsive to pressure from Washington,
as its fortunes and often families reside if "first class cities" of G7. This way
neoliberalism is able to suppress the other part of the elite of particular country
which favors "national" development and typically resides inside the country. As
a PR smokescreen neoliberalism pay lip service to national development, but in essence
it is hostile to it and favor "underdevelopment" of nations outside G7. It's anti-social
and has distinct schadenfreude
attitude to weak nations: it derives pleasure from seeing the misfortunes of other
nations and it try to exploit such moments ("disaster
capitalism").
Vae victis
as Romans used to say (Victor's justice).
And the winner in neoliberal revolutions is not the middle class and lower strata
of population (although they might be sold on it and fight for it, being deceived
by propaganda as is the case with the current generation of Americans), but international
and local oligarchy represented via international corporations and banks. For bottom
90% population the hangover after the neoliberal revolution comes really quick.
This affect was clearly visible after successful color revolution in Serbia, Georgia
and Ukraine.
In cases of Georgia and Ukraine the neoliberal leaders lost power after their
term and there were efforts to put them in jail for abuse of power and corruption,
which were not successful only due to USA pressure (only former Ukrainian Prime
Minister Julia Timoshenko, the
Joan of Arc
of Orange revolution was jailed). In any case popularity of leaders of neoliberal
revolutions drops to almost unheard levels with Victor Yushchenko commanding 2%
approval rating in Ukraine before the end of his term.
One last prefatory remark: I think it is important to recognize that fascism
(forms of contemporary conservatism) is a result of neoliberal thought. It is
not simply a supplement that aims to save neoliberalism from itself. So, even
as forms of religious fundamentalism provide supplements to the extremes of
neoliberalism, neoliberalism on its own has horribly conservative effects. The
passage below comes from:
Every successful society has devised ways of separating incompetent or
systematically unlucky people from the control of valuable resources. (That's
why civilized nations provide children and legally incompetent individuals
with guardians and trustees.) This is an essential process for all but the
most wealthy of nations, e.g., those cursed by great oil wealth. (This windfall
wealth situation is the national analogue of individuals winning the lottery;
a harbinger of bad things that follow the lack of a need to husband resources.)
A society's economic success is increased if it has sure and quick ways
to accomplish this separation, however painful to those who suffer losses.
While there will be political pressures to buffer folks from the consequences
of economic folly or bad luck, it is socially dangerous to do so. Reality
checks should have force, so that those who fail to prudently manage resources
will not keep control over them.
Let's identify the problems with the passage. First, failure is a matter
of incompetence or bad luck. Although bad luck is qualified with the term 'systemic,'
the writer's flip attitude overlooks systemic forms of exclusion like race,
sex, or citizenship. It occludes as well the impact of inherited wealth (a form
of the systemic protection of the incompetent) and generational poverty. Second,
incompetence and bad luck are equated with being civilized. To be unlucky, then,
is to be childlike, immature, incompetence, and barbaric (attributes long associated
with justifications for colonialism). I'm going to skip the section on oil wealth,
although I would think that people with more knowledge of the Middle East and
the ways that the Mid East figures in neoliberal rhetoric would have interesting
things to add here.
In 2014 a lot of people here condemned excesses of Ukraine nationalism, especially
the part of Galician nationalism the has clear neo-fascist flavor and that now attempts
to colonize South and Eastern Ukraine in a kind of replay of Drang nach Osten.
But rise of nationalism is a pan-European phenomenon now. And it is observable in
almost any county, including but not limited to France, Germany, Poland, Hungary,
Greece, and even UK.
Is not this is a (somewhat pervert) reaction to excesses of neoliberalism and neoliberal
globalization? In other words is not the key side effects of neoliberal globalization
is the rise of ultra nationalist and neo-fascist movements all over the world?
Many researchers think that yes (Globalization,
ethnic conflict and nationalism Daniele Conversi - Academia.edu):
The force of nationalism has spread well over the nineteenth century into
the age of globalization. There are thus parallels between modernization and
globalization as sti-mulating factors for nationalism and ethnic conflict. Although
the reach of globalizationis historically unprecedented, some of its features
accompanied the rise of modernity andthe advent of the modern nation state.
In particular, both resulted in the demise of older boundaries and the construction
of new ones. Whereas industrialization destroyed localand regional boundaries
by superimposing national boundaries on them, globalizationdestroyed national
boundaries by superimposing a plethora of supra-national and corpo-rate networks
on them, including mafias, organized crime, and multi-national corpora-tions
(MNCs), none of which are as easily identifiable on a political map as sovereign,
countries still are. The adoption of planetary rules to comply with the standards
set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank has unsurprisingly
resulted in global disempowerment, at least according to the perception of influential
NGOs activists (Korten 2001).
Has all this also led to a decline in national identities? Not at all. Partly
because nationalcultures have been seriously damaged or reshaped by globalization,
we have seen a global intensification of ethnic belligerence. Moreover, the formation
of new elites and the spread of capitalist wealth have led to nationalist self-assertion,
while cultural impoverishment spurred a generalized need for compensatory ethnic
assertiveness.
... ... ...
If nationalism cannot be explained independently from the onset of modernity
andmodern state-making, both are enmeshed in the expansion of warfare. Nationalism
manifested itself in an era of inter-state competition, the collapse of boundaries,
economic expansion, mass migration, general insecurity, political centralization,
obsessivelaw-making, societal policing, and drastic militarization, finally leading
to war. In them eanwhile, the Pax Britannica ensuing Waterloo provided the impetus
for colonialexpansion while fomenting inter-imperial rivalries and competition
(Conversi 2007).Thus, just as Europe was accumulating wealth, power, and armaments
in anticipation of the unprecedented conflagration, its global economic reach
affected broader and broader areas of the world. Economic competition and destructive
warfare were just beingexported beyond European borders. Linda Colley notes:
the profit and the price of this hundred-year partial European peace was
unprecedented Western, and especially British, freedom to concentrate on
global empire. In 1800, the European powers, together with Russia and the
United States, laid claim to some 35 percent of the globe’s total land area.
By 1914 [their] proportion of the globe … had risen to 84 percent (Colley
2002:311).
By 1914, the West had also accumulated enough economic wealth and weapons
of mass destruction to unleash the greatest manslaughter in human history. The
totalitarian era following the First World War has been described as the culmination
of a pattern of mass dislocation founded on modernity (Arendt 1958; Bauman 1989).
As we shall see later, the emergence of totalitarianism in Europe coincided
with the first wave of deep Americanization, including the triumph of Hollywood,
cigarette consumption, the car culture, and other US products meant for mass
distribution.
... ... ...
The expansion of nationalism throughout the globe is hence the spreading
out of aWestern idea. In other words, nationalism is an essential component
of Westernization.As I have argued, nationalism cannot be understood outside
the devastating impact of modernity, particularly industrialization, with its
demise of traditional lifestyles, skills,cultures, and communities (Gellner
2006). Such a devastation was suciently all-pervasiveto argue that the victory
of nationalism represented the victory of a surrogate sense of community, which
for some was a colossal
‘ fraud’ (Gellner 2006) or an invented tradition (Hobsbawm 1983). Thus, for
Gellner the nationalists spoke in defence of a hypo-thetical Gemeinschaft,
but actually practiced the construction of a novel Gesellschaft, the
two being largely incompatible. For both Gellner and Hobsbawm nationalism was
not much less than a form of cultural
brainwashing. For others, the whole process was not only counterfeit, it was
based on the conspiracy of emerging rapacious economic and political elites,
which used selected elements of popular tradition while invoking nationhood,
just as populists often invoke the defence of the people. For instance, the
role of secret societies like the Italian carbonari is a widely known and omni-present
feature of nineteenth-century century mobilization. Secret paramilitary groups
of patriots played a pivotal role in the spread of most nationalist movements.
Karl Marx’s characterization of nationalism as a form of false consciousness
manipulated by the bourgeoisie is a well-known example of this conspiracy approach.
Traditionalist, anarchical, conservative, and even liberal approaches often
share similar views of nationalism as a strategy of elites. The broader trend
is often known as instrumentalism(Smith 1998),because it emphasizes the mere
instrumentality of nationhood. Nations do no exist assuch; they are simply cultural
tools in the hands of elites or proto-elites who seek to mobilize the masses
on the basis of an emotional appeal to a common but fictitious nationality.
As we shall see, in its current shape cultural globalization is often understood
as a one-way importation of standardized cultural items and icons from a single
country, the United States of America, to the rest of the world regardless of
the fact that most of theitems are actually made in China. For many, globalization
is synonymous with Westernization (la Branche 2003, 2005, Latouche 1996) or,
more accurately, Americanization.The international consequence of Americanization
is a widespread sense of cultural insecurity vis-à-vis an unfathomable force
that nobody seems capable of containing(Amin 2004). Because this perception
has been so far unable to produce organized, rational and universal responses,
it tends to express itself through visceral, rudimentary,and unpredictable forms
of anti-Americanism (Barber 1995).
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright showed insights about the US
full-spectrum dominance cultural policy when she said that Cultural
factors play a pivotalrole in many of the international challenges we face
our cultural programs are central -- and I underline that — central to
the success of American foreign policy
(Albright2000). Once out of office, she adopted a more cautious position, considering
the risks and damages infl
icted by extreme forms of Americanization. For Bacevich (2002), the economic
openness implicit in neoliberalism produces a form of globalization that is
inevitably synonymous with Americanization, since it is predicated on a national
security approach founded on global dominance.
Yesterday's Lavrov presser has finally had the Q&A section added to it and its a
doosey! Lavrov's sounds incendiary in print! "Question: Your recent interview generated a lot
of controversy. You implied that Russia admits the possibility of breaking off with the EU.
How do you see this break and what conditions would have to happen for it to occur, that is,
where does Moscow draw the red line?"
Lavrov: "This interview took place on February 12, and the EU High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell was here on February 5. Upon his return, he
made a number of statements to the effect that Russia had failed to live up to expectations
and to become a modern democracy and is rapidly moving away from Europe. That is, it sounded
as if Russia was a hopeless case. This happened several days before the interview. Hence, the
question as to whether we were ready to break off with the EU during the interview with
Vladimir Solovyov based on those remarks about Russia. As a matter of fact, anyone who is
even slightly interested in the situation in Europe has long known that a break-off has been
underway for many years now. The EU has been consistently tearing down our relations.
"2014 was a turning point. A coup took place in Ukraine, and the EU showed it was helpless
and unable to comply with the agreement that was reached between the government and the
opposition right before the coup. Importantly, Germany, France and Poland put their
signatures under it. The opposition spat on these signatures and on the EU, which thought it
was important to comply with this agreement. It was then that the EU was really humiliated.
Everyone knows what happened next. By and large, the EU turned a blind eye to the attacks
against the residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine on the part of the ultras and neo-Nazis
who came to power, and decided to put all the blame on the Russian Federation.
"The EU has consistently destroyed all the mechanisms without exception that were based on
the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, including the biannual summits and annual meetings
between the Russian Government and the European commissioners and presidents of the European
Commission, projects to form four common spaces, over 20 sector-specific dialogues and almost
every other more or less important contact, as well as the Partnership and Cooperation
Council's annual meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister and the EU High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. These meetings were supposed to be used to conduct a
full review of all areas of cooperation between Russia and the EU. To reiterate, all of that
has been destroyed. Not by us, mind you."
That's the most candid I've read of his answers to the events of that time. Lavrov turns
down his fire and brimstone to make this very important distinction as he finishes his
answer:
" Importantly, we do not have any problems in our relations with individual European
countries , I would even say, most European countries. Russia's relations with Finland
are a very good example of how they are being built systematically and based on general
principles, primarily, equality and mutual benefit, and how they are translated into the
language of specific economic, cultural and other projects that are of interest to both
sides.
" The EU should not be confused with Europe. We are not leaving Europe, we have many
friends and like-minded people in Europe, and we will continue to expand mutually beneficial
relations with them ." [My Emphasis]
It's the NATO/EU combo controlled by the Outlaw US Empire that's the problem. And another
blast aimed at the EU over Navalny related events:
"In evaluating the questions expressed by Mr Haavisto, we heard that our colleagues from
Finland and other EU countries always bring them. We know that they are edited and written by
the EU, in Brussels, and are a subject of consensus. We hear this regularly enough, and these
statements are practically the same, word for word. If the organisation called the European
Union has made this decision, we take it as a certainty. We reply to problematic issues,
and the main point we express is how the EU consistently, diligently and deviously avoids
specific discussions that are fact-based rather than accusations often made against us for
some reason or without any evidence ." [My Emphasis]
In the last Q&A, Lavrov again restates what he earlier said about the EU being at
fault for the utter erasing of relations that were painstakingly built up over many years,
and he repeats what Merkel said at the time foe emphasis, for Russia was innocent of all the
crap it was being accused of in 2014:
"At this point, German Chancellor Angela Merkel specially took the floor to say in public
that Russia must be punished and that in this situation politics must prevail over the
economy. This was very unconventional for a representative of Germany."
This ought to remind people that this proved Merkel to merely be a cheap prostitute
unworthy of any trust, who should have been ousted from her position years ago.
Stakeholders consist of "customers, suppliers, employees, and local communities" in addition
to shareholders. But for Klaus Schwab and the WEF, the framework of stakeholder capitalism must
be globalized. A stakeholder is anyone or any group that stands to benefit or lose from any
corporate behavior -- other than competitors, we may presume. Since the primary pretext for the
Great Reset is global climate change, anyone in the world can be considered a stakeholder in
the corporate governance of any major corporation. And federal partnerships with corporations
that do not "serve" their stakeholders, like the Keystone Pipeline project, for example, must
be abandoned.
...T ake one David Campbell, a British socialist (although non-Marxist) and author of The
Failure of Marxism (1996). After declaring that Marxism had failed, Campbell began advocating
stakeholder capitalism as a means to the same ends. His argument with the British orthodox
Marxist Paddy Ireland represents an internecine squabble over the best means of achieving
socialism, while also providing a looking glass into the minds of socialists determined to try
other, presumably nonviolent tacks.
Campbell castigated Ireland for his rejection of stakeholder capitalism. ... Ireland's
more-radical-than-thou Marxism left Campbell flummoxed. Didn't Ireland realize that his market
determinism was exactly what the defenders of "neoliberalism" asserted as the inevitable and
only sure means for the distribution of social welfare? "Marxism," Campbell rightly noted, "can
be identified with the deriding of 'social reform' as not representing, or even as obstructing,
'the revolution.'" Like so many antireformist Marxists, Ireland failed to recognize that "the
social reforms that [he] derided are the revolution."
Ireland and Campbell agreed that the very idea of stakeholder capitalism derived from
companies having become relatively autonomous from their shareholders. The idea of managerial
independence and thus company or corporate autonomy was first treated by Adolf A. Berle and
Gardiner C. Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) and after them in James
Burnham's The Managerial Revolution (1962). In "Corporate Governance, Stakeholding, and the
Company: Towards a Less Degenerate Capitalism?," Ireland writes of this putative autonomy:
"[T]he idea of the stakeholding company is rooted in the autonomy of 'the company' from its
shareholders; its claim being that this autonomy can be exploited to ensure that companies do
not operate exclusively with the interests of their shareholders in mind."
This apparent autonomy of the company, Ireland argues, came about not with incorporation or
legal changes to the structure of the corporation, but with the growth of large-scale
industrial capitalism. The growth in the sheer number of shares and with it the advent of the
stock market made for the ready salability of the of the share. Shares became "money capital,"
readily exchangeable titles to a percentage of profit, and not claims on the company's assets.
It was at this point that shares gained apparent autonomy from the company and the company from
its shareholders.
Moreover, with the emergence of this market, shares developed an autonomous value of their
own quite independent of, and often different from, the value of the company's assets.
Emerging as what Marx called fictitious capital, they were redefined in law as an autonomous
form of property independent of the assets of the company. They were no longer conceptualized
as equitable interests in the property of the company but as rights to profit with a value of
their own, rights which could be freely and easily bought and sold in the marketplace .
On gaining their independence from the assets of companies, shares emerged as legal
objects in their own right, seemingly doubling the capital of joint stock companies. The
assets were now owned by the company and by the company alone, either through a corporation
or, in the case of unincorporated companies, through trustees. The intangible share capital
of the company, on the other hand, had become the sole property of the shareholder. They were
now two quite separate forms of property. Moreover, with the legal constitution of the share
as an entirely autonomous form of property, the externalization of the shareholder from the
company had been completed in a way not previously possible.
Thus, according to Ireland, a difference in interests emerged between the holders of the
industrial capital and the holders of the money capital, or between the company and the
shareholder.
Nevertheless, Ireland maintains, the autonomy of the company is limited by the necessity for
industrial capital to produce profit. The value of shares is ultimately determined by the
profitability of the company's assets in use. "The company is, and will always be, the
personification of industrial capital and, as such, subject to the imperatives of profitability
and accumulation. These are not imposed from the outside on an otherwise neutral and
directionless entity, but are, rather, intrinsic to it, lying at the very heart of its
existence." This necessity, Paddy argues, defines the limits of stakeholder capitalism and its
inability to sustain itself. "The nature of the company is such, therefore, as to suggest that
[there] are strict limits to the extent to which its autonomy from shareholders can be
exploited for the benefit of workers or, indeed, other stakeholders."
Here is a point on which the "neoliberal" Milton Friedman and the Marxist Paddy Ireland
would have agreed, despite Ireland's insistence that the extraction of "surplus value" at the
point of production is the cause. And this agreement between Friedman and Ireland is exactly
why Campbell rejected Ireland's argument. Such market determinism is only necessary under
capitalism, Campbell asserted. Predictions about how companies will behave in the context of
markets are only valid under current market conditions...
Despite this insurmountable "neoliberal"/Marxist impasse, the notion of stakeholder
capitalism is at least fifty years old. Debates about the efficacy of stakeholder capitalism
date to the 1980s. They were stirred up by Friedman's rejection of the "soulful corporation,"
which reached its peak with Carl Kaysen's "The Social Significance of the Modern Corporation"
in 1957. Kaysen viewed the corporation as a social institution that must weigh profitability
against a broad and growing array of social responsibilities: "there is no display of greed or
graspingness; there is no attempt to push off onto the workers or the community at large part
of the social costs of the enterprise. The modern corporation is a soulful corporation." Thus,
in Kaysen, we see hints of the later notion of stakeholder capitalism.
Likely, stakeholder capitalism can be traced, although not in an unbroken line of
succession, to the "commercial idealism" of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
when Edward Bellamy and King Camp Gillette, among others, envisioned corporate socialist
utopias via incorporation. For such corporate socialists, the main means for establishing
socialism was through the continuous incorporation of all the factors of production. With
incorporation, a series of mergers and acquisitions would occur until the formation of a
singular global monopoly, in which all "the People" had equal shares, was complete. In his
"World Corporation , " Gillette declared that "the trained mind of business and finance sees no
stopping-place to corporate absorption and growth, except final absorption of all the World's
material assets into one corporate body, under the directing control of one corporate mind."
Such a singular world monopoly would become socialist upon the equal distribution of shares
among the population. Stakeholder capitalism falls short of this equal distribution of shares
but gets around it by distributing value on the basis of social and political pressure.
Interestingly, Campbell ends his argument, rather undogmatically, by stating unequivocally
that if Friedman was right and "if these comparisons [between shareholder and stakeholder
capitalism] tend to show exclusive maximization of shareholder value to be the optimal way of
maximizing welfare," then "one should give up being a socialist." If, after all, the
maximization of human welfare is really the object, and "shareholder capitalism" (or
"neoliberalism") proves to be the best way to achieve it, then socialism itself, including
stakeholder capitalism, must necessarily be abandoned.
The 16th big press conference of Russian President Vladimir Putin has drawn a line. In the
history of the "concentration of Russia", a thirty-year period has come to an end,
characterized by successively advancing: fascination with the West, doubt in the West, and
disillusionment with Western "values". Russia has entered a new period.
During the final press conference of Putin, an incident occurred that caused a lot of funny
comments in Russian society and in the Russian press. BBC journalist Steven Rosenberg asked the
Russian President: "Is Vladimir Putin personally responsible for the deterioration of relations
with Western countries? Or is Russia all these 20 years of Putin's rule "white and fluffy"?
And, in addition, as expected, [he asked] "how is it going with the investigation into the
poisoning of Navalny?"
A dialogue ensued, during which the British journalist looked rather pathetic, to which
everyone paid attention. But the result of this conversation, although everyone quoted it, was
not appreciated by anyone. In the end [of the dialogue], it was said that Putin is responsible
for the people of Russia and before the people of Russia, and that yes, we are white and
fluffy, especially compared to you.
I can understand how the British journalist felt at this time. The world collapsed around
him. From his point of view, such an end to the conversation was simply impossible. He was not
taught this.
Recollection of the present
I know very well what I am saying. In 1993, together with another three dozen diplomats
representing all post-Soviet republics (including Russia) and all post-socialist countries of
Eastern Europe (then none of them were members of either NATO or the EU, although everyone
already dreamed of), I was at diplomatic internship in the UK. Among other things, we were
offered an educational format for communicating with the Western press, which (what a
coincidence) was represented by a rather elderly lady from the BBC. She explained to us for a
long time and tediously that we, as government officials, would have to listen carefully to the
position of journalists and if the journalist himself (especially a Western one) became
interested in some information or pointed out some political error, then the information should
be provided immediately, and the error should be corrected with an apology.
She talked for about forty minutes. I waited until she was exhausted and asked: "Why?" I
waited on purpose. Usually, in such cases, our Western friends simply repeat their monologue.
But the journalist was already quite second-hand, she had fizzled out over the previous hour
and, losing her guard, missed a hit. She answered with a question to the question: "What do you
mean why?".
It was then that I explained to her that in any country, Great Britain is no exception,
there are a lot of journalists from mass media. And each of them will be happy to interview a
government official and receive exclusive information on his (official's) terms. And such
"smart" ones as she won't even get into the waiting room. There are many ways to avoid
accreditation under a plausible pretext. And after her publication is given to understand that
no one will ever speak to this journalist in this country, she will simply be fired for
incompetence or sent to the Papuans, from where one report is published every ten years.
This dialogue took place in the summer of 1993. I was 27 then. I think that Steven Rosenberg
was then at the same (plus or minus a couple of years) age. I have long forgotten the name of
the BBC lady, but I will never forget her face. She looked at me as if the gates of hell had
opened behind me and the entire infernal army was about to rush at her. Rosenberg's face was
half hidden by a mask, but it could not hide his confusion, further emphasized by a stampede
from the press conference.
Let me stress again that I understand him well and sympathize with him. 27 years ago, when
the incident I described above happened, journalists already liked to speculate about the
"fourth power", but most of them themselves did not really believe in this thesis.
Nevertheless, open disregard for the "rights of the press" was not comme il faut even then.
Like "homophobia" about ten years later.
Since then, the young and then seasoned BBC journalist Steven Rosenberg was taught for 27
years that he was not just a "fourth power", but a representative of Western civilizers in a
semi-primitive world that dreams of becoming like the West. Stephen is the bearer of
civilization. Any of his statements is a priori true, and the authorities of the "wild tribes"
to whom he brings civilization must justify themselves to him and immediately rush to eliminate
the shortcomings he has noticed.
"Russia is disappointed with Europe's inability to defend its interests on its own"
And after all, for a long time it was so. Including in Russia. Not that the Kremlin believed
in the Western "mission of good offices", but they proceeded from the fact that compromise is
better than enmity and were ready to make reasonable concessions in anticipation of reciprocal
steps. It cannot be said that this strategy has completely failed to justify itself. Part of
the Western world, especially in the EU and especially in Germany and Italy, really strives to
build equal pragmatic relations with Russia on the basis of a mutually acceptable
compromise.
But the part is not the whole, and on the whole, the Western world retains its hostility
towards Russia, poorly hidden by unfounded arrogance. Moreover, it is clear that despite the
strengthening of the Western political circles sympathetic to our country, this trend will not
be broken in the coming years. But then it will be too late. The window of opportunity will
close.
Any political decision is possible and expedient within a certain time frame. If someone
does not have time to meet these deadlines, then they have to implement a different version of
the future. That is why not a single serious state works according to the principle of no
alternative. There are always fallbacks, maybe not as good, but not disastrous, usually just
less profitable. But those who are late for the joint train to the future remain at a broken
trough.
2020 was the year of summing up the results in Russian-European relations. At the level of
statements by politicians and press materials, at the level of visits, agreements and active
events, the fading of Russia's interest in the European vector and the redirection of the
dominant of its foreign policy to the Far and Middle East became noticeable.
The last warning was the autumn speeches of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in which
it was stated openly that Russia is disappointed with Europe's inability to defend its
interests on its own and, given this factor, does not expect anything else from cooperation
with the West and does not plan to unilaterally take into account the opinion and the interests
of the West.
Perhaps in the UK or specifically on the BBC, being immersed in their Brexit, Lavrov was not
heard. But that's their problem. Russia is not doing anything out of the blue. Before openly
telling the West that "We didn't actually want to work with them" a long-term (stretching over
a decade and a half) work was carried out to search for alternative markets, to import
substitution of critical products imported from the West, to strengthen the army, to recreate
the ocean-going fleet, gaining allies, creating military bases controlling trade routes that
are critical for Russia.
The West missed this entire era of "concentration of Russia" (the expression of Chancellor
Gorchakov). Already the second time the West misses (the first "concentration" in the XXI
century ended in 2008). In Europe and the United States they consoled themselves with the fact
that Russia is a "colossus with feet of clay", that it does not have sufficient resources even
to intervene in the situation in the post-Soviet space, that "Moscow is bluffing", that the
West is indispensable because it is a "civilizational choice" etc.
And suddenly, in 2020, the collective West saw that Russia's positioning towards it had
changed dramatically. If earlier [the West's] claims were heard, explanations were given,
Russia was trying to prove something, now Europe began to be ignored as an annoying mistress.
With some countries, the Kremlin has stopped talking altogether, with some it talks, but
"without respect."
"Yes, we are white and fluffy"! -- But only for ourselves. So what will you do to us?
Western journalists, especially BBC journalists, do not ask random questions at press
conferences of heads of state. BBC is a state corporation, its activities are aimed at
realizing the state interests of Great Britain, including collecting information using the
possibilities of journalism. By asking the question "Are you white and fluffy?" -- the leading
circles of the West probed the soil and were ready to hear anything in response, except what
sounded: "Yes, we are white and fluffy" -- and your opinion on this issue interests us least of
all.
This is the point, the end of the long-term flirtation between Russia and the West, which
the West hoped to start up in an absolute moral and material gain, and suddenly sees itself in
the role of "Ariadne abandoned." Given the Western vindictiveness, such public humiliation of
it became possible only following the results of a decade and a half of well-coordinated,
albeit invisible, work of all Russian state structures, including state-owned companies.
In 2014, the West was surprised to learn that Russia is able to ensure its food security
(over the next six years, Moscow has been steadily increasing its food exports). In 2015, the
West became convinced of the stability of the Russian financial system, which it never managed
to break. In 2016, the West still laughed at the "cartoons" and argued that in reality Russia
did not have demonstrated weapons systems, because it could never be. Since 2018, he has been
forced to admit his critical lag in the military sphere. In 2017-2018 the West suddenly learned
that Russia concentrates on itself the supply of liquefied gas, for which the West was a de
facto monopoly, one by one introducing the corresponding terminals in the North and the Far
East (which makes the fight against Nord Stream 2 and other flows senseless, since Russian gas
will come to Europe by a route alternative to the Ukrainian one, if not through gas pipelines,
then with the help of gas carriers). By 2020, the West learned that Russia is also able to
build gas carriers on its own (as well as other ships and vessels of any class).
In parallel, international systems of cooperation between Russia and China, Iran, Turkey and
Egypt were being built. If, until about 2014, Russia's priority was to ensure internal
stability and security in the context of a likely break with the West, then the emphasis in
domestic policy shifted to disavowing the ideological expansion of the West, and in foreign
policy to building alternative trade and economic ties, securing promising markets. and
partners.
All this, of course, is not as beautiful as the even ranks of the royal grenadiers, bravely
breaking the enemy's resistance under a hail of grapeshot. But for the latter to become
possible, many years of routine work are needed to create an independent economy capable of
meeting the needs of the army and the people in any conditions, for a period of time of any
length, as well as to provide the rear with reliable military-political alliances.
And only after many years of efforts of millions of people, someone alone can smile and say
to the unfortunate journalist, turning over his head to the collective West: "Yes, we are white
and fluffy!" -- So what will you do to us?
In the history of Russia, a thirty-year period has come to an end, characterized by
successively advancing: fascination with the West, doubt in the West, and disillusionment with
Western "values." The line has been drawn. Russia has entered a new period characterized by
indifference towards the West and a lack of illusions about all of its current partners and
allies. We leave ideals for home use, for external use we have only interests. Russia itself
has built its own well-being and is going to use it itself. And whoever doesn't like it, can
cry, or gnaw the earth, or bite his elbows. We are "white and fluffy", but only for
ourselves.
Putin has to stay within neoliberal framework because this is a the dominant social framework in existence. But he is determine
to "tame the markets" when necessary which is definitely anathema to neoliberals. So he is kind of mixture of neoliberal and traditional
New Deal style statist. At the same time he definitely deviates from neoliberalism in some major areas, such as labor market and monopolies.
In fact, much of his economic and social policies have a decidedly neoliberal bent. As Tony Wood argues, Putin has reformed
and consolidated the Yeltsin system. There is not as much of a break with Yeltsin as liberals -- or apparently leftists looking
for any hope -- want to believe.
You have no clue. This is a typical left-wing "Infantile Disorder" point of view based on zero understanding of Russia and neoliberalism
as a social system. Not that I am a big specialist, but your level of ignorance and arrogance is really stunning.
Neoliberalism as a social system means internal colonization of population by financial oligarchy and resulting decline of
the standard of living for lower 80% due to the redistribution of wealth up. It also means subservience to international financial
capital and debt slavery for vassal countries (the group to which Russia in views of Washington belongs) .
The classic example is Ukraine where 80% of population are now live on the edge of abject poverty. Russia, although with great
difficulties, follows a different path. This is indisputable.
The neoliberal resolution which happened under alcoholic Yeltsin was stopped or at least drastically slowed down by Putin.
Some issues were even reversed. For example, the USA interference via NGO ended. Direct interference of the USA into internal
affairs of Russia ( Russia was a USA colony under Yeltsin ) also diminished, although was not completely eliminated (and this
is impossible in view of the USA position in the the hegemon of the neoliberal "International" and owner of the world reserve
currency.)
Those attempts to restore the sovereignty of Russia were clearly anti-neoliberal acts of Putin. After all the slogan of neoliberalism
is "financial oligarchy of all countries unite" -- kind of perversion of Trotskyism (or. more correctly, "Trotskyism for the rich.")
In general, Yeltsin's model of neoliberalism in Russia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semibankirschina )
experienced serious setbacks under Putin's rule, although some of his measures were distinctly neoliberal.
Recent "Medvedev's" pension reform is one (which was partially a necessity due to the state of Russian finances at the time;
although the form that was chosen -- in your face, without some type of carrot -- was really mediocre, like almost anything coming
from Medvedev ); some botched attempt in privatization of electrical networks with Chubais at the helm is another -- later stopped,
etc.
But in reality, considerable if not dominant political power now belongs to corporations, whether you want it or not. And that
creates strong neoliberal fifth column within the country. That's a huge problem for Putin. The alternative is dictatorship which
usually does not end well. So there is not much space for maneuvering anyway. You need to play the anti-neoliberal game very skillfully
as you always have weak cards in hands, the point which people like VK never understand.
BTW, unlike classic neoliberals, Putin is a consistent proponent of indexation of income of lower strata of the population
to inflation, which he even put in the constitution. Unlike Putin, classic neoliberals preach false narrative that "the rising
tide lifts all boats."
All-in-all whenever possible, Putin often behaves more like a New Deal Capitalism adherent, than like a neoliberal. He sincerely
is trying to provide a decent standard of living for lower 80% of the population. He preserves a large share of state capital
in strategically important companies. Some of them are still state-owned (anathema for any neoliberal.)
But he operates in conditions where neoliberalism is the dominant system and when Russia is under constant, unrelenting pressure,
and he needs to play by the rules.
Like any talented politician, he found some issues were he can safely deviate from neoliberal consensus without too hard sanctions.
In other matters, he needs to give up to survive.
@FB
Soooo your proof that I am a troll is that I didn't spell a German to Russian to English
borrow word correctly and capitalized it on a website comment board? And your follow-up slam
dunk is that I am new to the site. To really take it to the next level of critical thinking,
you throw in some ad hominim attacks and deny my education? Move over Sherlock Holmes, we got
a real sleuth here.
My diploma number is 107732 0012900, awarded on June 5th, 2019 and signed by
Шестопал Е. Б. and
Байков А. А.. My thesis was titled: "Russia
in sub-Saharan Africa: Approaches, Interests and a New Frontier for Cooperation with China"
so yeah actually I know quite a bit about Russia's relationship with China. You're welcome to
read it. You'd find my recommendations in the conclusion would not go over well at the CIA.
That I took intelligence analysis courses from the likes of Andrey Bezrukov would not make me
a shoo-in either. Anyway, I assumed this crowd didn't require a lengthy numbering of
America's crimes as a preface to holding an opinion about Russia.
hey never cared about being in some sort of 'club' to begin with international relations
isn't junior high, which one would expect a 'graduate' of international relations to
know
That is funny that you say that because that is *exactly* the impression that I got from
my diplomacy classes. It was like 24/7 LARP set to The Emperor's New Clothes. I am not
talking about the attitude toward the Putin or the Russian government – that was
surprisingly neutral and refreshingly open to discussion – just about how politics are
conducted in general. It was astonishingly – by my admittedly cynical standards –
juvenile. I cannot even imagine how asinine diplomacy and political wheeling and dealing in
the West must be, as they take it all deadly serious in Russia.
All Russia ever cared about was having normal relations friendly if possible, but on
equal footing the entire tone of your fantasy is straight out of the '90s only deluded
Washington hacks still dream that we are living in the '90s
That is true. I don't think Russia is still the 90's. I wasn't here in the 90's anyway, so
I cannot even make that comparison. What I said is that, from my observation and experience,
the people who are still in charge are the same who forged their careers in the 90's and that
their thinking has evolved only in response to betrayals by the US, not due to any
fundamental problem with how the US operates. Russia is fine to play by the rules set out be
Washington, but they are eternally bewildered that those rules only apply to them because
otherwise they would be forced to swallow the truths of Lenin and Marx. For professors
arriving in late model black Mercedes driven by chauffeurs, that would be awkward. For
Russian elites, it is the fact that the game is rigged against them which is the problem, not
the game itself.
Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system.
These types of banks are called "gyro or giro" banking. When you take out a loan, you are
borrowing existing money. The bank does not hypothecate new money into existence.
The movie "It's a wonderful life" is a battle between two types of banking, the Gyro Bank,
vs Hypothecation Bank.
Gyro banking has been subsumed by the more dishonest Hypothecation methods that usurers
prefer. Gyro banks like U.S. Savings and Loans, and their equivalents around the world, have
slowly disappeared. In U.S. it was the (((usual suspects))) that were responsible for
S&L's disappearing.
Gryo banking has another nemesis, and that is money origination. If a national-state
creates new money debt free, then laboring savers will eventually have a "pile o money" to
loan out. Without debt free from Treasury, then laboring savers will be storing money that
at-source originated as a hypothecation event elsewhere in the banking system.
In other words, it is not enough to have a Gyro saving bank, the "credit" origination
problem elsewhere hasn't been dealt with.
One of Saker's points is that Putin did not listen to Stolypin Group's Sergei Glaziev and
instead is listening to economic liberals like Elvira Sakhipzadovna Nabiullina . The Stolypin
group is on-point, and yet they have been marginalized. Why?
Liberalism's swan song is seductive, and one of its tenets is that you need to borrow
"credit" on international markets to then buy "international goods." Another tenet is that
you can get rich and become an Oligarch too, and live a life of blowing snow up your nose,
and having hooker's galore living the life on another's labor is usury magic that works.
A national state does not need to borrow credit, when it can make its own. The only time a
national state needs to borrow another countries money type, or international banker money
like Federal Reserve Notes, is to acquire something your nation doesn't have . say
petroleum.
In Russia's case, its economy can be almost completely autarkial, and hence liberalism's
swan song is BS, and Putin hasn't gotten the memo. Putin doesn't understand economy, or has
purposefully ignored Glazyev for some reason.
Saker is correct, Russia would be doing much better if Putin had listened to Glazyev Much
better means an economy probably two or three times what it is now, and the six'th column
would be nowhere to be found.
The money power is never trivial, and it informs just about everything else in a
civilization. I feel the same as Saker, I like Putin but Putin has failed spectacularly by
not understanding how money works, and falling for economic Liberalism's swan song.
Hitler had somebody like Glazyev. His name was Reinhardt, and because Reinhardt was
nationalist and illiberal, Germany's economy was able to take off and had a large measure of
autarky.
Germany spent debt free "labor certificates" into the economy per Reinhardt (and later
Schact's) method.
"... Finally, the political dysfunction that now eats away at the United States' reputation, is not a factor that we should underestimate. Donald Trump's administration treats no one as equal. Only Israel and at times Saudi Arabia seem like favored nations if not full-fledged equals. Speaking of brotherhood and loyalty, Mr. Putin's loyalty to and rescuing of Syria's Assad has not gone unnoticed in these regions. At the same moment the US-led coalition tries to stabilize it's invaded satraps, Putin continues a more than forty-year tradition of sticking by the Syrian leadership. And the Russian president has capitalized on this aspect to expand Russian influence worldwide. ..."
Whenever there's an examination of Russia's resurgence in Middle Eastern and African affairs, the narrative is always
about weapons, economic competition, and Cold War-era detente. Few analysts or reporters examine the non-transactional
elements of the policies of Vladimir Putin. To really understand the recent successes of Mr. Putin and Russia, we must
understand the somewhat obscure aspects of Russia's foreign policy.
A perfect example of how trade statistics dominate
western thought process on Russia policy can be found at almost any Washington or London think tank. Take this Chatham
House
report
last year by Dr. Alex Vines OBE, for instance. The Africa Programme at Chatham House is not immune from the
disease that causes western experts to oversimplify and underestimate Putin's external policies. To quote Dr. Vines:
"Russia has, for several years, been quietly investing in Soviet-era partnerships and forging new alliances by
offering security, arms training, and electioneering services in exchange for mining rights and other opportunities."
As you can see, Vines is totally focused on transactional aspects of Russia's relationships, adhering to what
political scientists refer to as "rentierism" – or the new imperialism. As you may know, the concept of the rentier
state is Marxist, thought to have come into practical use in the time of Lenin. But while the so-called rentier
mentality which dominates much of the Middle East and Africa does affect Russia and policy, the deeper implications of
Russia's new relationships are equally important.
Dr. Vines, Chatham House, and nearly all the west's other analytical stables discuss Russia's wielding of soft power.
This is true because their approaches and understanding of world affairs is from purely a businessman's or a general's
world perspective. This is the part of the reason west-east relations are so mucked up. Every reporter on a policy beat
in New York or Washington can write a biography on Vladimir Putin and "what he wants," but there's no one who really
understands how Russia's president is winning at world detente.
In much the same way business relationships are fostered in a highly competitive economic environment, Russia's
successful policies often win out because of the more subtle factors. In Africa, for instance, the history of the Soviet
Union's, and later Russia's criticisms of Cold War-era neocolonialism play a role. Make no mistake, ideologically, Mr.
Putin's efforts and outreaches are far more appealing than those of the US, France, Britain, Germany, and others with
the Anglo-European mindset toward these nations. As for the Middle East, Mr. Putin's policies win out in large part
because of a more "fraternal relationships" – like the one between Russian and Middle Eastern Islamic communities.
Samuel Ramani and Theodore Karasik point these out in a report last year at
LobeLog
.
The western discussion centers around accusing Russia and Mr. Putin for what US policies are centered around. It's as
if the greatest minds in the western world cannot fathom establishing cultural or ideological linkages with people of
these nations. The Americans, French, Brits, and Germans look at Russia policy success as bankers and weapons dealers,
from a superiority and exceptionalism standpoint. While Russia seems to address the Middle East and Africa on a more
equal footing.
Finally, the political dysfunction that now eats away at the United States' reputation, is not a factor that we
should underestimate. Donald Trump's administration treats no one as equal. Only Israel and at times Saudi Arabia seem
like favored nations if not full-fledged equals. Speaking of brotherhood and loyalty, Mr. Putin's loyalty to and
rescuing of Syria's Assad has not gone unnoticed in these regions. At the same moment the US-led coalition tries to
stabilize it's invaded satraps, Putin continues a more than forty-year tradition of sticking by the Syrian leadership.
And the Russian president has capitalized on this aspect to expand Russian influence worldwide.
Russia is supplanting western powers as the more "reliable partner" for many reasons. And it does not hurt that
Donald Trump and his European allies continually stumble over their archaic ideas about emerging countries. Sure Russian
business will prosper from this dynamic shift in Africa and the Middle East, but the profit will not be nearly as
one-sided as it is with the neocolonialists. This
AI-Monitor
report puts it this way in a discussion of Mr. Putin's "Gulf Security Plan":
"He [Putin] might believe his is ultimately the only meaningful diplomatic channel; his stock rises, even if
incrementally, simply by playing on traditionally American turf; and the Gulf states, and maybe even the United
States and the EU, might eventually come around to avoid an unwanted crisis and conflict."
In short, Putin and Russia have been so successful, winning nowadays is about watching the US and allies make
mistakes as much as it is about created dynamic policies. For those unfamiliar, the Russian
concept
for the Gulf area is a strategy that will work. That is if the western hegemony can agree to try a new game
for peace and prosperity in these regions. I find it interesting that the official documentation of this Putin plan is
framed in the form of an invitation to Washington and the others, to take part in a broader coalition for peace and
security. Obviously, the Anglo-European cabal did not accept.
"Russia's proposals are in no way final and represent a kind of invitation to start a constructive dialogue on
ways to achieve long-term stabilization in the Gulf region. We are ready to work closely with all stakeholders in
both official settings and in sociopolitical and expert circles."
Yes, Russia wants trade and economic wins in both the Middle East and Africa. No, Vladimir Putin does not want to
leverage regions and continents in a global domination game intended to destroy America and allies. Destroying markets,
after all, is not a way to do good business. As for analyzing Putin, the experts should examine the other variables of
his success. That is, even if the goal of think tanks is to find an enemy's weakness. So far, Putin does not seem to
have any.
In law courts, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. In politics, too.
The problem
with what President Vladimir Putin announced
in his
Federal Assembly address this week, and what he did immediately after, is that
things don't look the way he says they should.
The difference was written on Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's face.
He thinks Putin has destroyed the political forces of the candidate with the best chance of winning the
presidential election of 2024 -- himself. The businessmen and government officials who have depended on Medvedev
are acknowledging this realization on the telephone.
An hour after this picture was taken, at a meeting with Putin of the assembled ministers at Government
House (Kremlin term for White House), Medvedev
announced
: "as the
Government of the Russian Federation we must give the President of this country an opportunity to make all the
necessary decisions for this. Under the circumstances, it would be correct for the entire Government of the
Russian Federation to resign in accordance with Article 117 of the Constitution."
He looked and sounded unconvinced that his exit was "correct".
The constitutional provision to which Medvedev referred is a notorious relic. Article 117 was created by
President Boris Yeltsin after he used the military to crush parliament's opposition in October 1993. Several
hundred people inside the White House were killed.
The new constitution was voted two months later by the disputable margin of 58% in a disputable turnout of
54%.
Article 117
then gave the
president the power to block a prime minister's resignation
; veto a vote of no-confidence in the
government by the State Duma; and the power to decide whether and when to dissolve parliament and hold new
elections.
In Putin's
speech
on
Wednesday, he began his proposals for a constitutional amendment with the announcement: "We have overcome the
situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by oligarch clans." Usurpation of
power by Yeltsin at the expense of the Congress of People's Deputies in 1993 was not explained then, nor since,
by the operations of the oligarchs. They came later. In Russian public opinion, the oligarchs continue to be
extra-constitutionally powerful today. The polls show Putin's claim is not believed.
The proposals Putin has announced change the balance of power between the presidency and the parliament. But
they also change the balance of power between the houses of parliament, and also between the central power in
Moscow and the regions.
The State Duma, according to Putin, will have the new power to appoint "the
Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and then all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers at the
Prime Minister's recommendation. At the same time the President will have to appoint them, so he will have no
right to turn down the candidates approved by the Parliament." This
implies
the State Duma will be able to exercise a veto over ministers' performance with votes of no-confidence the
president cannot override.
This is not yet certain.
Also unclear is who would prevail if the president decides to dismiss the
government which holds the confidence of parliament.
Putin said he proposes to keep "the right to
dismiss the prime minister, his deputies and federal ministers in case of improper execution of duties or due
to loss of trust."
The constitution is silent on the terms, improper
execution and loss of trust. They are powder the president aims to keep dry for himself.
The Kremlin has immediately convened what it calls a "working group on drafting proposals for amendments to
the Constitution". No elected constitutional convention; no constitutional assembly provided for in
Chapter
9
of the present charter; no principle of representation; no decision or voting rules for the novel body.
It was hand-picked by the President's staff -- "75 politicians, legislators,
scholars and public figures". The Kremlin has published photographs, but no list of the names yet.
The oligarch class, as Putin calls them, is
represented
by Alexander Shokhin (centre picture above, left); the working class – to whom no one refers –
is represented by the man seated by the Kremlin next to Shokhin, Mikhail Shmakov, head of the trade union
federation.
Noone in uniform is seated at the Kremlin table. The military appears to have one seat; that's occupied by
retired Army General Boris Gromov (above right), 76, now
titled
"Chairman
of the Brothers in Arms National Veteran Public Organisation". Gromov's political career after the Army rules
him out as representing the General Staff or the Defence Ministry.
Putin's proposals create a fork in the balance of power by assigning
domestic policy-making, including the budget, to the parliament's appointees to government; while reserving
defence, military, and security powers, and their budgets, to the executive. "The president also exercises
direct command over the Armed Forces and the entire law enforcement system.
In this regard, I believe
another step is necessary to provide a greater balance between the branches of power. In this connection, point
six: I propose that the president should appoint heads of all security agencies following consultations with
the Federation Council."
This preserves the imbalance – Putin's terminology -- let's say concentration of policy-making and
enforcement powers in the Kremlin; it also guards the incumbent president during the transition between now and
2024, as well as afterwards. "I believe," said Putin, "this approach will make the work of security and law
enforcement agencies more transparent and accountable to citizens." The Russian public opinion polls are very
sceptical.
The first test of what this step will mean in practice will be the names
of the new ministers of defence, internal affairs, foreign affairs, the Federal Security Service, the
intelligence agencies,
and the two state law enforcement organs, the Prosecutor-General and the
Investigative Committee.
In the small print of Putin's speech, he proposes
to centralize authority even more than the present
by reducing the power of regional authorities to
control their prosecutors. "I am confident that a greater independence of prosecution agencies from local
authorities would be beneficial for citizens regardless of the region," Putin said. Public distrust of both
federal and regional prosecutors, recorded in the polls, suggests otherwise.
The Putin scheme also creates a competing source of legislative power by
expanding the
State
Council
,
hitherto a talking shop;
and by expanding the powers
of the Constitutional Court
to rule, on the Kremlin's application, against parliament, as well as
against regional governors and regional parliaments.
The State Council in its last Kremlin session, December 26, 2019.
In
his speech on Wednesday Putin proposed to "cardinally increase the role of governors in decision-making at
the federal level
. As you know, back in 2000 the State Council was restored at my initiative, where
the heads of all regions participate. Over the past period the State Council has proven its high
effectiveness; its working groups provide for the professional, comprehensive and qualified examination of
issues that are most important for people and Russia. I believe it would be appropriate to fix the status
and role of the State Council in the Russian Constitution."
On Thursday
he ignored the State Council by appointing a different group to consider the constitutional amendments.
No Russian commentator has published the question, why
In theory, Putin is creating more checks and balances than have existed
before
. Differences of view and interest between experts, parties, factions, the military, and classes
– Putin's term – are inevitable and natural.
The vote to adopt the proposals
will, however, be an all-or-nothing one.
"I believe it necessary to hold a vote of Russian citizens on
the entire package of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The final decision
must be made only on the basis of its results," the president concluded in his speech.
This looks like a referendum, but
Article
136
of the current Constitution is ambiguous. The 2008 amendments to the Constitution were
adopted
,
not by referendum but by votes of the State Duma and the Federation Council. There has been no referendum under
the present constitution.
How much of the proposed scheme is a fine distinction of powers without a change in their division? Putin
told Medvedev at the
meeting
with
the outgoing ministers:
"There is a clear-cut presidential block of issues, and there is a Government block of issues, even
though the President, of course, is responsible for everything, but
the
presidential block includes primarily matters of security, defence and the like.
Mr Medvedev has
always been in charge of these matters. From the point of view of increasing our defence capability and
security,
I consider it possible and have asked him to deal with these
matters in the future. I consider it possible and will, in the near future, introduce the position of Deputy
Chairman of the Security Council.
As you are aware, the
President is its Chairman.
If we need to amend the applicable law, I will do so soon and I want
State Duma deputies to support this as well. We just need the lawyers to provide assessments on this
account."
Sources in Russian business and government interpret Medvedev's new job
as a gold-plated watch -- consolation prize for losing the presidential succession race. Sources are unanimous
in judging what has happened to be the liquidation of the Medvedev faction.
Politically, the rationale is obvious. Public disapproval of the government's performance, and the stress
which the ongoing US war is inflicting on Russia's domestic growth, have been showing a consistent trend.
It is equally clear that the Medvedev faction, and also the pro-American
supporters behind Alexei Kudrin at the Accounting Chamber, German Gref at Sberbank, and Anatoly Chubais at the
state high-technology conglomerate Rusnano, are the short-term losers of the reorganisation
Putin has
proposed. The short-term gainers are not so obvious. Sources among them ask why the Kremlin staff calculated
that a renovation of the government ministers should be dressed up as a constitutional reform.
These sources suggest that on the sincerity test, Putin's proposals will not be believed for what he says
they are. They add they are encouraged, also hopeful, that
he is acting now
to restrict the damage that faction-fighting over the succession can do over the next three years. Liquidating
one of the factions has been an option advocated by many for some time.
On the other hand, the sources
point out that if Putin were sincere in his commitment to enhanced power-sharing with the parliamentary
political parties, why sack the present prime minister now, and not wait for the State Duma to vote its
approval for the new man under the new rules? This is a question which answers itself, most Russians think.
By the war test -- how the proposals will affect the regime-change strategy of the US and NATO – the
combination of constitutional plans and the replacement of Medvedev by Mikhail Mishustin (lead image, in car
next to Putin) is judged to be no gain, no concession to the other side. Not yet.
That leaves the poll test.
To choose Mishustin to become the prime
minister is the biggest surprise of the week
, and a curious selection to win public approval. If Gogol
were to use the name, he would be tagging its possessor with something like the caricature, "busy baker", since
to the Russian ear, the roots of the word suggest someone who makes his living mixing things, like a baker;
and who is visibly busy at that work. Mishustin himself likes to identify his recreation as ice-hockey. On
the rink he plays forward and back, but not goalie.
Left: Mikhail Mishustin makes his nomination speech at the State Duma, his debut as a national political
figure.
Watch the speech
,
which was read from a paper script and lacked direct eye or any other personal contact with the deputies.
They responded to the speech with brief, tepid applause. Right: Mishustin in his hockey uniform
The Russian biographic record for Mishustin, records his long technocratic training in computer science and
economics; his PhD was on tax administration. He first started in state tax agency in 1998.
A 53-year old native of Moscow, Mishustin is reported to be part-Armenian
by origin
; his Soviet birth certificate may indicate that at birth one of his parents held Armenian
nationality. If so, he would automatically hold
Armenian
citizenship
. According to Putin's constitutional proposals, the prime minister and other senior officials
may "have no foreign citizenship or residence permit or any other document that allows them to live permanently
in a foreign state."
A protégé of Boris Fyodorov in the Yeltsin-era finance administration, Mishustin spent a brief period,
2008-2010, working in the Moscow investment banking business of UFG Partners, first established by Fyodorov. By
the time Mishustin arrived, the company was owned by Deutsche Bank and run by Charles Ryan, an American;
Fyodorov died of a stroke a few months into Mishustin's term at UFG. In April 2010, Mishustin returned to run
the tax agency, and he has
remained
there
for a decade. Tax evasion and embezzlement of value added tax (VAT) fill the kompromat records which have
been
published
about Mishustin
over this period.
Mishustin
told
the
State Duma yesterday he is in favour of reducing the regulatory burden on Russian business.
The Communist Party faction announced it would abstain from voting to
confirm the prime minister because it was impossible to know what policies he stands for.
Suspicion
that Mishustin will try to cut social welfare benefits is widespread. The confirmation vote was 383 in favour;
41 abstentions; no one opposed. For the record of the Duma vote, read
this
.
One oligarch vote of confidence in Mishustin has been announced.
Vladimir
Lisin
, head of the Novolipetsk steel and coal-mining group,
told
a
Moscow newspaper: "We evaluate Mikhail Mishustin's work as head of the Federal Tax Service positively. Under
his leadership, the service increased tax collection, virtually eliminated schemes used by unscrupulous
businesses in competition, and reduced the number of on-site inspections several times by introducing a
risk-based approach. Despite the fact that we had quite difficult debates, we always found a common
civilized solution."
Mishustin has appeared only once before this week in Putin's Kremlin office. That was on November 21, 2016,
Tax Workers' Day. In their meeting Mishustin's recital of his agency's performance was unexceptional. Putin
said
nothing out of the ordinary.
In the Russian photo archive for Mishustin, not
one picture shows a smile on his face.
A reluctant grin he managed for his last birthday, March 3,
2019,
according
to the Russian Ice
Hockey Federation.
Putin has selected factotums before, men whose technical expertise was
their asset, along with their lack of political constituency and electoral ambition.
Mikhail Fradkov
was the first, between 2004 and 2008;
Victor
Zubkov
the second, between 2007 and 2008.
When Putin appointed them,
they made no changes to the power ministries.
Mishustin is the third in this line.
If he announces the end of the long terms in office of Sergei Shoigu and
Sergei Lavrov, and General Valery Gerasimov is replaced at the General Staff, then Putin is deciding much more
than he has admitted so far.
Our Response to the Next Crisis Must Tackle Consumerism Posted on
October 26, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. While one can
applaud the sentiments in this post, status competition is a strong feature of most societies.
Admittedly, some have revered accomplishment or sacrifice or exemplary behavior over having a
lot of toys. But so much of our behavior revolves around consumerism that it affects how we
tackle problems. For instance, one strong theme in Green New Deal programs is to build new
energy efficient housing. Yet the energy cost of a new house is roughly 10 years of operating a
not terribly energy efficient existing house of similar square footage.
Admittedly, this article focuses more on consumerism in terms of more mundane purchases like
clothing and devices, but "household formation" and moving almost always involve a buying
stuff. Even if your old goods work well in new digs, there's still always something to buy
curtains, a new lamp .while in the old days, people would inherit houses, furnished, and not
change them much (or if they did, gradually), or lived in rooming houses with very little.
By Rob Macquarie, a writer and researcher focusing on the financial system and its links
to inequality, democracy, and sustainability. He tweets @RJMacquarie. Originally published at
openDemocracy
If there is one way the
next economic crisis won't be the same as the last, it will have to do with the state of
our planet. In 2008, the
Copenhagen Accord hadn't been signed, let alone the Paris Agreement – or millions of
schoolchildren missing Friday lessons to protest the terrifying future they will inherit.
Now, economic transformation is widely viewed as a prerequisite for halting ecological
breakdown. Because of this, the next crisis is often presented by those who long for change as
a golden opportunity, envisaged with massive investment in energy systems, transport, and clean
industrial technology.
To be sure, these changes cannot come quickly enough. Yet they are not the only piece of the
economic, nor ecological, puzzle. The ruling elites of wealthy countries have a poor record in
undertaking ambitious public spending. Instead, they look to ordinary citizens –
recast
over decades as 'consumers' – to carry the load.
Household consumption on aggregate represents the largest chunk of economic activity in
most countries. Though often characterised as 'motor' or
'engine' of growth, as things stand a liferaft would be a
better metaphor . During recessions, household spending can remain relatively flat compared
to investment and therefore GDP more broadly. In the US, consumption, though battered by the
storm of the 2008 crisis,
supported employment in the face of declining business prospects.
Our economic dependency on consumerism is linked to changes afoot at the global level, both
secular and cyclical. On the one hand, the gradual march of (privatised) digital technology and
financialisation have undermined and disrupted investment in the real economy as a source of
stable prosperity. Listlesss productivity
in some G7 nations and a massive reduction in state spending under austerity regimes have
placed much of the burden on households.
In Britain, this sterling effort from the 'good old British
consumer' comes at a cost. Households have been taking on
net debt – in other words, running down their wealth – since 2016. Financial
pundits
present debt-led increases in household spending as a natural source of GDP growth despite
only having assumed such a prominent role following the 1980s' neoliberal turn.
On the other hand, present conditions have also sharpened our reliance on the household
consumer. This is by no means limited to the relatively financialised Anglophone economies.
Germany's mighty manufacturing sector, beset by difficulties from Brexit to global trade
disputes, is behind recent gloom in the
economic figures . Major infrastructure projects, if badly conceived, can lock in an
unhealthy incentive to keep the population spending – see the hapless development of
Berlin's Brandenburg
airport , dependent on retail for up to half of its profits. Meanwhile, the UK's
sickly retail sector , pressed on one side by trade uncertainty, strains under ever-larger
piles of corporate debt.
All of this has disastrous ecological consequences. In 2009, in the wake of the global
recession, Friends of the Earth Europe reported people in
rich countries consume up to 10 times more natural resources than those in the poorest
countries. As development raises standards of living for vast numbers of people living in the
Global South, especially in China and India, keeping material consumption and carbon emissions
from spiralling upwards will require a change of gear in resource efficiency and, simply put,
more frugal behaviour by Western consumers.
Last year an important paper in Nature found
that 'physical needs (that is, nutrition, sanitation, access to energy and elimination of
poverty below the US$1.90 line) could likely be met for 7 billion people at a level of resource
use that does not significantly transgress planetary boundaries'. Meeting 'more qualitative
goals (that is, life satisfaction, healthy life expectancy, secondary education, democratic
quality, social support and equality)' for people in all countries will require major changes
in 'provisioning systems' – that is, an overhaul of economic institutions. In other
words, unnecessary material goods valued by Western shoppers put at risk the attainment of even
more fundamental social and human rights for the majority of the world's population.
So the policy response to a fresh crisis must be viewed through an ecological lens. With
interest rates still at rock-bottom and quantitative easing
alive and kicking , the flow of easy money creates a powerful incentive to urge an anxious
public to 'keep calm and carry on spending'. The planet cannot afford such timidity, nor
complacency over a spontaneous rise in so-called conscious consumerism.
Instead, as well as supply-side measures clustered under a Green New Deal or Green
Industrial Revolution, the crisis toolkit must consider consumer demand. Policy can make a
consumption surge conditional on sustainability with policies like fiscal incentives for retail
companies to apply rigorous, sustainable standards. Electric vehicles already enjoy support
from governments in many countries – notwithstanding some
rowbacks . These schemes
can be designed to contribute to the fiscal 'automatic stabilisers' that push back against
a recession: for instance, by channeling money from penalties for emissions-intensive vehicles
into subsidies for EVs.
Alongside a shake-up of the energy mix, governments must promote the circular economy.
Investment can target projects aimed at reducing household and supply chain waste.
Right-to-repair schemes being pioneered by civil society deserve tax incentives or other
market-shaping assistance from the state. And across all industries, we must move away from
early obsolescence of consumer goods. A report prepared for the
European Commission in 2012 recommended a host of policies to target these issues, such as
grants for industry to initiatives to improve product lifetime or reduced VAT for more
efficient and durable products.
Thinkers pioneering a new economics are joining the dots between the demands of sound
economic management during a downturn, social justice, and the ecological crisis. Vocal
criticism of a decade of austerity laid the groundwork. Now progressives, eager to raise living
standards, must watch their messaging to promote sustainable consumption. Those sounding the
alarm about resource use are right that rich nations must not continue to overspend their
ecological budget.
When the next crisis arrives, parties arguing for a green transformation will have to prove
they understand that.
Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a "mess of pottage" (Genesis 25:27-34).
It's no exaggeration that the birthrights of many, many people are gone.
Were those birthrights sold for a mess of pottage (consumerism) or were they legally
stolen by a unjust economic system with consumerism as pitiful compensation?
Mash up with Facebook and such where people and their data, now improved with the 23
new DNA features , are the product to see how birthrights get sold, seemingly
voluntarily. Dark patterns are noticed popping up everywhere once they are pointed out.
Neo-liberalism needs a new modern name and a better publicist.
I've always suspected "Consumerism" to have been invented and used as a weapon against
unions. We must supply the consumer with inexpensive products, etc. IIRC consumerism didn't
start to enter the dialog until the 80s in any significant way. And then it was everywhere
all at once. Spontaneous realities like that are confusing. Just where did it come from? It
happened in Germany about the same time. They didn't crush their labor/unions like we did. We
were absolutely ruthless. And it was all justified by claiming we had to make sure the
consumer was well supplied. What a bunch of nonsense.
I not only applaud the sentiments but the ideas, many of them otherwise played in many
posts here such as the rigth to repair and a real turn to circular economies. Yet, i still
miss something that being politically very difficult, it is IMO a must: puting legally
binding limits to fossil fuel consumption.
Regarding status competition: I personally have cut my consumption by much in the last
decades although I was never a big spender. I don't think my personal living standard has
declined, on the contrary, I think my life is richer in many aspects. I don't try to sound
exemplary, I am not in many instances. I admit that a big reason for this Is that I have lost
income but lately It has been more a voluntary thing. I am a disastrous manager of
smartphones that too often are lost (I am famously lost-in-thougth in my environment), or
take them to swim with me, or fall and break when I am in a hurry because I forgot something
somewhere. For this reason I cannot afford too expensive smartphones though I don't feel the
need to have the latest. With more people like me, the rigth to repair and recycling of
smartphones is a must. I still consume too much meat, partly cos I like it, and partly
because members of my family with chronic iron defficiency ask for meat. Most importantly, I
have no longer empathy for those that feel the status competition and the impulse to own the
largest house, the fastest car, the latest tech thingy or having dinner in the most expensive
restaurant. I don't feel alone in my environment and a lot of people I know are on the same
page on this. Status competition can die and good riddance should I say.
about iron deficiency Ignacio, I read long ago and it proved true for me that if you take
a good B-complex every day (no problem bec. B is water soluble) it solves iron
deficiency.
Another note about B12. It is not well absorbed by those over 50 and so levels need to be
checked periodically. One of the symptoms of a deficiency is confusion.
I wonder how we could manage to implement potlatch -- where a person's wealth is judged by
what they can give away, rather than the amount that can't be pried away from them by any
possible means.
It may not be potlatch, but ANTI-status competition seems already to be catching on in
places like Sweden, with flight shaming, shaming over owning more than one of the same thing,
shaming over buying new stuff etc..
Subsidies for electric vehicles are unicorn farming. The materials required for a
transition to EVs simply don't exist, the grid can't support it and automobiles facilitate
sprawl, which is at the heart of western consumerism.
Unless you charge your EV with power from your solar cell, EV's are just transference;
from gasoline to fossil fueled power from the power plant.
In lieu of charging your EV with your own solar cell, the CO2 from the power plant needs
to be reduced by emission control to achieve an overall reduction in CO2 to the atmosphere. I
wonder if this will ever happen.
The only advantage for EVs environmentally would be that although it is still a fossil
fuel derivative, its emissions (at the power plant) could be captured and either reprocessed
or sequestered. Also EVs are lighter cars and so require less heavy manufacturing. One
solution no one ever mentions is logistical. Delivery trucks could deliver everything a
neighborhood needed/ordered and leave it at a neighborhood depot. In the walk-to spirit of
the old corner store. And everyone could walk or bike to pick up their orders.
Oh right .. I'm gonna lug that 200lb+ Ikea shelf (could be any large, unweldy item or
items) package on my back !! 2-4 blocks from the 'depot' to my house ?? Even using a bike
would be problematic .. even with the use of an E-bike .. on anything other than level
terrain .. and that is assuming your purchases aren't 'lifted' before you arrive to claim
them !
All this talk of walking or biking to achieve X doesn't take into consideration the multitude
of circumstances .. due to health or logistics, just to name a few .. among various
individuals that preclude such easy and flippant response !
If people were to resort to using draft animals, then perhaps that would work, but not
without adding in other 'externalities' into the mix.
Even when the power is generated using fossil fuels, electric vehicles usually, compared
to gasoline vehicles, show significant reductions in overall well-wheel global carbon
emissions due to the highly carbon-intensive production in mining, pumping, refining,
transportation and the efficiencies obtained with gasoline. This means that even if part of
the energy used to run an electric car comes from fossil fuels, electric cars will still
contribute to reduce CO
2 emissions, which is important since most countries' electricity is generated, at least in
part, by burning fossil fuels.[
Environmental aspects of the electric car That said, Yves has posted several articles
suggesting it is physically impossible to convert the world's fleet of POVs to EVs. If we are
going to continue to pack the planet with people, electrified mass transit is the obvious
choice. My question is what role do EVs play during the transition?
Electric vehicles are actually more efficient in their use of energy and so it's NOT just
transferring energy use from one place to another.
"EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the
wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored
in gasoline to power at the wheels"
Don't take this is an argument that electric vehicles don't have any problems, and these
aren't total lifecycle calculations, but thinking the energy use is merely transferred just
seems to be a misconception of how electric vehicles work.
When you charge an EV, where are you getting that electricity from? I think that is what
is being argued. If you are getting that energy from a coal plant, you aren't saving
anything, and plastic requires oil to manufacture. For that matter, what about all the heat
energy used to smelt the copper, etc?
The overall eficiency of a fossil fueled power plant using steam turbines to extract
energy is about 33% on the average. Even if EV's convert 60% of the electrical energy to
power at the wheels, 70% of the enegy is already lost at the power plant.
aye. status symbols mean nothing to me which is a big source of the "weird" label i so
proudly wear.
I'm usually rather filthy dirt and paint stains, holes from barbed wire -- i counter that it
means i work for a living, dammit haven't cut my hair in 15 years(except for the occasional
knot(whip out a pair of wire cutters at a wedding, and remove a knot,lol I'm almost
legendary) and don't even want, let alone need, a new used truck every other year(again, at a
wedding, I come through the dancing people with old milk jugs to get water for the steaming
radiator others are mortified, for some reason because we're all supposed to pretend that we
ain't po folks)
I'm locally notorious for coming out of the landfill complex with more than i go in with,lol
and my shamelessness is actually contributing to open discussion about such things.
i do not hide my contempt for all that pretentious posturing especially if it's people who
should know better .down nose looks at my clutter, when i've been to their house,lol, and
know!
emulating the rich is a cancer on our civilisation ."they're food, people!".
however, i think that globe encircling supply lines and built-to-be-replaced (foreign)
manufacturing are the bigger, if easily related, problem.
doesn't fit easily on a bumpersticker, but the local veggie grower can't compete head to head
with slave labor far away .and shouldn't be expected to global markets are not akin to
gravity or a thunderstorm: they are the products of human minds and human choices(just not
often our choices i don't decide how much plastic is in whatever necessary product i buy)
at the root of all this consumerism is media including the web.
since i took a copywriting class(as in ad copy) in college, i've been immunised against
advertising it just doesn't effect me.
but it sure does effect everyone else.
(i also realise that i am anomalous and unreplicatable in a lot of this i've always been a
weirdo outcast, and so never developed the clique-behaviour of my peers i don't have anything
to prove, because i learned early on not to care what the people around me thought since they
were, apparently, shallow and ignorant, overly concerned with what other mean and shallow
people thought. this might be a possible upside to being bullied/excluded -- given the right
circumstances, it builds independence of mind and a hard, spiny carapace. (this in no way
implies a fondness for bullying and exclusion.))
very similar here. I think the problem is simple greed as a form of addiction. The people
at the top want more. Therefore, sell more. They know the cost of everything and the value of
nothing. Older I get the more and more of my stuff is built in USA prior to 1950. The only
people who know the value of a buck is the ones thats had to work for it.
I got rid of all the crap over the years -- and thats another thing, ever notice how much
plastic crap there is? The car costs the same but its all plastic now and you can't fix it.
Thats another way they rip you off with crapification. Thats why I pulled out of that rat
race. I'm keeping my 30-yr old jeep on buckboard wagon springs.
When I think back to how life was lived in the 1950s to today, the first thing that comes
to mind is how much we as a society have moved away from real household goods of good
materials and quality to a more cheapish plastic throwaway lifestyle via furnishings,
appliances, clothing and plastic bags and bottles everywhere. Every time I see a Wayfair
commercial chills go through me for all the plastic garbage crap that is out there. Isn't
this the crux of the problem, always believing new stuff no matter the quality as long as it
is cheap is the way to life live in America? Get it and then throw it away. This is where the
reversal should happen, getting consumers to buy well made household goods and pay for it so
they can keep it for years and years. Buy quality. Believe in quality. A real wood table or a
real marble one. People have wanted to buy cheap garbagey stuff for too long already, items
no one wants so they get thrown away. I visit estate sales in the past couple years and some
of the furniture the oldsters among us lived with is exquisite, extremely well made. Now
compare to what is out there now. Or clothing, another category. If you buy real fabric like
wool or cotton or silk, your items will last forever. Beverages should be sold in glass
bottles again. Stop living a disposable lifestyle, How to drill that into people who don't
know any better is the trick. But this will be a way for people to stop some of their
nonsensical consumerism. Also an option is to buy used things. In New York many of us found
furniture on the street other people threw out to be great for furnishings. Recycling on a
larger scale.
One issue I have with this is that some elements of structures have improved
significantly. Case in point are windows. Energy efficient windows and glazing are a vast
improvement over that available in the 50s. That said, obtaining efficiency with retrofitting
older structures takes the input of a lot of energy and cost.
re: windows now better than windows 60 years ago.
when we moved back out here, we learned that wife's familia intended to demolish the 1950's
era house we were living in in town(it being an insulationless POS that drunk uncle had let
go to hell was a major factor in building our current house).
so i spent that winter removing all the old windows(and as much of the wood clapboard siding
and cedar interior one by's as i could) and storing them.
single pane and fragile as hell.
just look at them wrong and they break(better once installed).
i used those for the greenhouse attached to the house(passive heating!) but the difference
between those ancient aluminum framed things and the new "e-rated" windows in most of the
house is astounding. on a cold day, place a hand on them and the difference is apparent.
those old ones are sufficient for the greenhouse, though.
(i also used a bunch of even more ancient windows in parts of the house, that my family
had saved some from the teens. the glass is more robust and thicker than the 50's plate,and
the wood framing insulates a bit better than the aluminum but i still went to the trouble to
put shutters on them(some shutters still in progress))
i read a study just recently that said that older windows, repaired properly, are not less
efficient than modern windows. they passed the variety of blower tests.
now, as for e-coatings, triple panes and argon fillings i don't know. but it did say that
this was good news, because people can stop tossing out their historic windows in favor of
the new just for energy savings. it goes without saying that if you live in a place of energy
extremes, your windows shouldn't be huge anyway. the r-value is, even in the most expensive
window, only 1/3 that of the wall or less.
Some solid points here about buying goods based on quality and stuff to last. Why eat off
plastic plates when you can eat off plates made of porcelain? I still have plates given to me
by a girl when she was moving house back in the late 1970s that I constantly use. You cannot
say the same for a plastic plate. If we were forced to move back to a 1950s lifestyle but
with high-tech bolt-ons I do not think that people would mind in the long run. Smaller homes
versus McMansions? Yeah, I could buy into that.
The second half of the equation is that manufactures will have to be forced to make goods
that are built to last at a reasonable price and that are easily maintained & repaired.
We have an antiques furniture store near hear and it can be highly interesting wandering
around and looking at the common place items of past generations. The furniture is built well
and is made of beautiful wood but that does suggest something. When you look at the crap
furniture that is made these days, I seriously doubt that much of it will be found in antique
stores by the next generation as it simply will not last.
And that is the point. making things that last. As an example – light globes. They do
not last that long and they dim but what would it be like if they were manufactured to last
decades? There are currently light globes that were manufacture in the 1890s that are still
burning today with Livermore's Centennial Light Bulb being one example. Imagine if nearly
everything was built to last for years if not a few decades. What is that? Corporations could
not survive with that business model? You wonder then how they managed to make it work a
century ago then.
Planned obsolescence should have been our first clue. It had nothing to do with
competition, or the latest fashion – those were just advertising ploys. Planned
obsolescence was a necessity to keep capitalism going. Because, ironically, capitalism is a
very good supplier. Until demand runs out. Then capitalism has no where to go. Except to dive
deep into consumerism and denial. Which is one reason I keep hoping for an ingenious idea
that puts capitalism to work repairing the environment. I don't know why we can't have
reverse capitalism. It could be a great economic engine for centuries to come.
"Planned obsolescence should have been our first clue"
Many of the people shopping today do not know that a kettle should last 20 years or
blender should last 30. I have a 50 year old electric frypan for goodness sake and it still
works fine.
I know I clued in early and stopped buying from the stores, I look for old stuff at the
thrift stores and if I can't find it there I do without
I don't know if their are any companies around anymore who make quality .products at any
price
we still use by grandma's art deco blender, from the 50's(waring–replacement parts
are still available for pretty cheap, too)
heavy glass jar, steel housing. i replaced the cord(i have a pile of those,lol)
.and being a frequent landfill scavenger, it's crazy what people throw away even with the
recent local wall to wall about permitting a new landfill. lumber to cinder blocks to actual
bricks, boxes of natgeo and scifi mags going back to the 30's and of course, all the
structural steel and slightly bent metal roofing and gutters galore.
what's depressing like mentioned here, is the furniture and appliances not even worth trying
to repair or repurpose. particle board and staples for the former -- melts in the rain and
the cheapest plastic and pseudometal for the latter -- will never decompose.
like with the plastic packaging(which i think is a plot to make us nuts need tools to get
into the damned things), a lot of the "choice" is somewhere upstream of us, but still.
I'd never spend money on the "furniture" i see at the dump.
Enjoy your rant so (of course) I have to nitpick one thing:
>I still have plates given to me by a girl when she was moving house back in the late
1970s that I constantly use. You cannot say the same for a plastic plate.
Actually, you can. Plastic wouldn't have been so much of a problem if we had stuck to
making things like plates out of it. If you don't believe me, give me your china for a bit
(no DON'T seriously!) and see how long it takes my family to break it. The plastic stuff can
be dropped infinite times.
I used that example of the plates because last night I had to throw out a plastic plate as
its surface was 'bubbling'. By the same token, not all those china plates have lasted the
past forty years but more so than if they had been plastic.
we could be satisfied with our material goods a bit more than we are, if those goods were
made and designed properly.
case in point: clothing. there is no actual way to make clothing that is not
environmentally challenging. even back in the days when we did it for purely natural fibers,
dyeworks and processing plants were noxious.
but try to buy anything that isn't some kind of odd blend of plastics and barely-there
fiber now. try to buy something like a good linen shirt. for some of us, these things have
been priced beyond our reach. and a good linen shirt would probably last 5 years or more.
replicate that for every item of clothing you have (barring socks, underwear and shoes
which have to be replaced more often). i don't remember the last time i had something that i
wore regularly which lasted 5 years, but believe it was sometime during the 90s. sometimes it
doesn't last beyond the first wash without snags and oddities appearing. and i am not that
hard on anything, unlike a genuine "working man" who has a ton of muck that has to be washed
out of the clothing every week.
repeat for many household goods. in whose interests is it that we buy, and rebuy the same
crap every single year?
We had a neighbour from the mill-towns of England that brought out a lot of material from
where she worked. The stuff lasted for decades. Clothing was like that once and I have a copy
of an 1805 will in which it mentions what would happen to the clothing as it was rugged
enough that you could pass it along and so was worth mentioning in a will. I read too that in
medieval time a air of shoes would be passed down a family and would last about a century.
The manufacture of clothing that lasts a season is only a commercial decision which we are
all paying for.
One big difference between the way life was lived in the 1950s and today is that in 1950
people could stay in one place and work at the same job and retire. Nowdays, at least in my
line of work, it is difficult to find a job you can count on for more than a few years.
People used to stay married and could remain in the same house for most or all of their life.
I moved all over the country chasing work. I adopted a throwaway lifestyle for my furniture
because if I couldn't throw it away or take it apart somehow I couldn't move it by myself. If
I didn't move myself -- if I paid movers -- it cost more to move most of my stuff than it
cost to toss it -- even 'quality' furnature -- and replace it with more cheap junk I pick up
from the curb or buy at Goodwill Stores, good enough to last until my next move. As for "buy
quality" -- I value the quality of well made furniture efficiently constructed using
materials light in weight, comfortable, stable, and strong; furnature I can easily take apart
and reassemble, and move myself. What I have isn't exactly throwaway, nor is it the kind of
quality you value.
[Even friends have become throwaway in the same sense as my furniture. I write, and call,
and sometimes drive long distances to visit but invariably my friends and I grow apart and
they stop answering. The family I grew up with is scattered from coast-to-coast and much of
it grown as remote as old friends. The family I started has broken up and it too has
scattered in search of work and opportunity.]
Returning to "buy quality" -- where is that stuff sold? I can buy quality names at high
price but the old slogan "quality goes in before the name goes on" is just empty words.
you wouldn't have had to buy and replace or move furniture if we had high quality
built-in, nearly fully furnished apartments.
same goes for the much vaunted "smaller houses". the reason, at least i believe, people
started to go larger is because a smaller space has to be much more carefully designed and
thought out in advance, and furnished with versatile pieces in order to suit the variety of
living functions that the space will be used for. which is easier? getting a
nearly-custom-designed home capable of being used for everything, or adding another/more room
to the plan and putting in more furniture and appliances to suit the activity? most people
have no means to afford architects or interior designers, so simply go with the extra
rooms.
this most readily shows up in the often-repeated fact that you can buy a smaller home, but
finishing it to a decent level will cost you the same or more than a larger one. a lot can be
hidden in big rooms and extra rooms. faulty design, for one.
Jeremy, your comment is very matter-of-fact and very touching, especially the next to last
paragraph. That's where so many of us are. Inode Buddha and Diphtherio stress community. It's
hard to find and hard to make.
"Returning to "buy quality" -- where is that stuff sold? I can buy quality names at high
price but the old slogan "quality goes in before the name goes on" is just empty words."
Unfortunately, the Peoples Republik of NY does not allow trash picking from dumps, so I
resort to Craiglist and eBay. Or simply thrift shops, family, and friends. Yard sales and
estate sales are often gold mines. I *wish* we had boot sales in the USA.
Clothing is all natural BTW: leather, cotton, wool.
I hear you, having moved more than a few times across the country for jobs and
opportunities, something employers used to pay for but no longer. I learned how to streamline
my stuff which means I spend hours before a move to get rid of the nonsense. What does come
to mind though is how much better the furniture and appliances were made back then compared
to now, in other words the quality and workmanship is much higher. Used to buy from Ethan
Allan where actual American people would sign the pieces they made. Sigh. There is something
to be said about buying furniture from the actual person who makes the pieces. Natural
materials and high quality. Just one example.
As you indicated, lives are different now, without the security of family and life long
friends and neighbors. And steady employment. As a way to defeat consumerism it may be
worthwhile to really pay attention to what is being bought and to buy it with quality in mind
so it will endure. Again I have noticed a lot of furniture and art pieces and decorations
that are very high quality at estate sales where these types of items would never be made and
sold anywhere now. Unique pieces, very well made. The way things used to be. We lost that
sensitivity and now buy senselessly. Just to buy, just to fill a void. People don't really
need that many things.
I keep on thinking that economic incentives for refraining from having children would be
nice in order to emphasize how destructive our population has become in creating
anthropogenic global warming. However, it seems to me that it is hard to link social
responsibility to positive economic benefits and far easier to impose financial burdens.
Either way, though, population needs to be addresses or a "circular" economy will be
impossible.
Just what I was going to say
Consumerism goes hand in hand with the brainwashing that goes on.The reason we shop so much
is because it feels bad when we don't, I have actually had people ask me how I manage to not
shop or not watch TV I am now the "strange" old lady.
In my personal experience, I have seen how Poverty reframes and affects all personal
consumption choices.
Lots of compromises between what you would like to buy and what you can afford with the money
you have.
And of course there are strategies to offset that for the informed.
Not an excuse and we all could do better driving our demand to a better outcome–but
not to be ignored or underestimated–imo
Light globes = bulbs, could last very long if they were run with the tungsten filaments at
a lower voltage (cooler).
The trade off is that running the filament cooler causes the light output to drop, so the
electric bill is higher for the same light.
The new LED lamps, assuming they have quality and well-rated electronic components should
be able to last a long time and provide good light at a lower cost.
LED light bulbs should last a very long time. I saved a few of the LED light bulbs after
they failed and tore one apart. Inside there is tiny power supply board to convert the 120 V
alternating current to a level to drive the LEDs on a puck connected to the power supply. I
have a hunch that the LEDs are still working fine. I even wonder how many of the little power
supplies are still working just fine after taking a look at the wire connection between the
power supply and the base of the light bulb assembly. [I haven't tested out my hunch yet --
it's one of many projects part-way along that clutter the folding tables that furnish my
living room.]
Consumerism will be destroyed at the same time all nation/states are destroyed at
Armageddon. Until then Satans system runs the way it is. Greed will not allow humans to get
rid of it.
Russia has no net public debt left
06:54 09/10/2019 (updated: 07:26 09/10/2019)
MOSCOW, Sep 10 – RIA News. The net public debt of Russia has become negative for
the first time since the introduction of the first sanctions for the annexation of the Crimea
and the fall in oil prices in 2014, RBC writes, with reference to Ministry of Finance and
Central Bank data.
As of August 1, the volume of public debt of the federal government, regions and
municipalities, including state guarantees for enterprise loans, amounted to 16.2 trillion
rubles.
At the same time, the liquid assets of the state – federal authorities, regions
and extrabudgetary state funds – totalled 17.6 trillion ruble son the same
date.
Thus, in the widest sense, the public debt since mid-2019 has become less than the
liquid assets of the "expanded government", the publication indicates.
As noted, this has became possible owing to record reserves that have fully covered the
state debt. That is to say, if Russia needed to immediately pay off all existing debts, this
could be done at the expense of only government deposits with the Central Bank and commercial
banks.
As the Minister of Economic Development, Maxim Oreshkin, emphasized, "what has been
done in Russian macroeconomics from 2014 to 2019 will definitely fall into the textbooks", At
the same time, the flip side of such a tough approach is the lack of fiscal incentives for
economic development.
Over to you Bloomberg, WSJ, FT etc., etc!
Waddya say to that, arseholes?
And think on this, you happy folk of the Exceptional Nation who prosper ever onwards:
MOSCOW, 16 August 2019/ Radio Sputnik . Russia
continues to reduce investments in US bonds in June, reducing their size to 10.8 billion
dollars, the United States Ministry of Finance has reported.
According to Finance Department data, 5,296 billion dollars of this amount is for
long-term securities and 5,552 billion are short – term.
For comparison, in may, the total amount was $ 12 billion.
As part of the de-dollarization course for Russia, other financial instruments are
gaining importance: gold and investments in European and Asian securities, chief expert of
FinEk agency Mikhail Belyaev said on Sputnik radio.
According to the economist, the instability of the US economy also contributes to the
withdrawal of Russian assets from it.
"... There are two problems with storming the Winter Palace. First, you won't have a decisive majority of Americans behind you. Second, you have no idea what you'd do if somehow did seize the Winter Palace. You could conceivably solve the first problem by going balls out demagogue a la Hugo Chavez; but, like Chavez, you'd have to dispense with democracy to keep power because you have no solution to the second problem. For my money, a decent social democracy-universal healthy care, more progressive taxes, a higher minimum wage, more affordable college education, etc.- is plenty hard enough to secure. ..."
"... Before the long-decline began in the 70s, a large fraction of the UK's economic activity was chartered, regulated, and/or managed for the people. That's not capitalism, by definition. ..."
"Does anybody around here have anything useful to suggest"
both demonstration and general strikes are powerful ways to express popular outrage. one is planned
on for the 17th (too soon) and another more organized one is being planned for march.
"the British welfare state, the war on poverty/great society policy era, and the Scandinavian
social model are" not replacements for capitalism. They are forms of capitalism. And the sorts
of policies that go with these versions of conventional social democracy are...pretty much the
platform articles that Clinton ran on. Which is the serious reason the American right despised
Hillary. They, at least, didn't have any trouble telling the candidates apart.
There are two problems with storming the Winter Palace. First, you won't have a decisive majority
of Americans behind you. Second, you have no idea what you'd do if somehow did seize the Winter
Palace. You could conceivably solve the first problem by going balls out demagogue a la Hugo Chavez;
but, like Chavez, you'd have to dispense with democracy to keep power because you have no solution
to the second problem. For my money, a decent social democracy-universal healthy care, more progressive
taxes, a higher minimum wage, more affordable college education, etc.- is plenty hard enough to
secure.
Before the long-decline began in the 70s, a large fraction of the UK's economic activity was
chartered, regulated, and/or managed for the people. That's not capitalism, by definition. (Socialism
was a market/trade-based system at its inception. The tendencies with alternative economic models
came later.)
"And the sorts of policies that go with these versions of conventional social democracy are...pretty much the platform
articles that Clinton ran on."
I guess I missed Clinton advocating for the nationalization of health care, education, energy
production, and transportation.
And the "welfare state" has little to do with "social democracy" (whatever that recent nonsense
phrase means), all of them were developed by socialist movements.
"... "The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said. ..."
"... "The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted. ..."
"... "They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues," he said. ..."
"... "In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states." ..."
"... Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence. ..."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared today that the Western, liberal model of society is dying, and a new world order
is taking its place.
Lavrov made the comments at his annual meeting with students and professors at the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy, reported
Russian state news agency TASS.
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this
is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
said.
According to him, global development is guided "by processes aimed at boosting multipolarity and what we call a polycentric world
order."
"Clearly, multipolarity and the emergence of new centers of power in every way requires efforts to maintain global stability
and search for a balance of interests and compromises, so diplomacy should play a leading role here," Lavrov went on to say.
"Particularly because there are a lot of issues that require generally acceptable solutions."
These include regional conflicts, international terrorism, food security and environmental protection. This is why we believe
that only diplomacy can help make agreements and reach sustainable decisions that will be accepted by all.
"The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted.
"They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic
and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues,"
he said.
"In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't
hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states."
Perry Colace
When I was a kid, the Soviet Union was the enemy. Now Russia (with an economy, population, military and world influence the
fraction of the United States) seems to be one of the few places in the world that makes any bit of sense and ACTUALLY cares a
little bit about its culture and people.
Fluff The Cat
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is
what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all.Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
said.
A Judaic-Masonic world order is the end goal. It entails the complete loss of sovereignty for all Western nations and the slow
genocide of white Christians via miscegnation and displacement by third-worlders.
lnardozi
I can't think of a man more American than Putin.
Sell the bases, come home, stop bothering others and trying to run world affairs.
Then we can spend a nice nice century or so rebuilding our infrastructure and trimming our out-of-control federal government.
The clue is right there in the name - the united STATES of America. A state is a sovereign country with its own laws - except
for those powers enumerated in the Constitution which the federal government should have.
That's the whole point - competition in government. You don't like the state you're in - you're guaranteed the choice of 49
others, along with all your possessions.
notfeelinthebern
Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence.
johnnycanuck
Western global dominance, US took over from the British Empire with the assistance of the banksters class. It's all there in
the history books, you just need to spend time
consider me gone
As much as I hate to say it, this was Winston Churchill's idea. Even as the war was just starting, he was a major advocate
for the West controlling the globe after WWII.
But I'll bet he had no idea that the West would abandon traditional Western values in the process. He wouldn't watch TV and
predicted it would turn society into unthinking idiots. He nailed that one anyhow.
The Alliance
"...many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said.
Skeptical?
I, for one, would show up early and highly motivated to march against, and to destroy, these treasonous, malevolent, collectivist
Globalists.
The Globalists within the United States government are traitors--traitors, by definition. They have declared war on our republic.
CDN_Rebel
Russia works because they have a ruthless tyrant who happens to be incredibly competent. That same system with a weak ruler
will collapse entirely in a matter of months. I like Putin, but he needs to groom an ironfisted successor pronto.
As for the chows - they need to print half a trillion a month to stay afloat and that's your model?
The west is only fucked because the sleeping masses refuse to acknowledge that Marxists have undermined our institutions...
It would take only a few years to scrub these subversive ***** from our society if we had the balls to do it
johnnycanuck
yadda yadda yadda.. marxists, subversives, commies, all the catch phrases of ye old Joe McCarthy. Russia works because Russians
have a history of enduring adversity. Unlike Americans.
Moribundus
It is eventually end of era of western imperialism, era that lasted 900 years. Game is over
"... It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as have some other communists. ..."
@Commentator Mike
Today's system is a hybrid of a late finance-stage global capitalism and cultural–not
economic–Marxism. Instead of class struggle, we have identity politics. Instead of the
ownership of the means of production, we have tranny bathrooms.
So the right-wingers (like Peter Hitchens) who say that 'Marxism won' are half right
culturally, not economically. What causes all the confusion (among the libertarian types
especially) is that capitalism in reality does not in any way resemble how it ought to
work according to libertarian theories and never did. But when you point out to them
that capitalism never worked in practice to begin with, they answer: 'But true
capitalism has never even been tried!' And of course, they're right. 'True' capitalism (i.e.,
what libertarian theory calls capitalism) really never has been tried, and for exactly the
same reason that perpetual motion machines have never been tried either: they're
impossible.
None of which means I'm a 'pure' socialist. I'm open to mixed-economies and new
experiments. I usually characterize myself more as a national socialist, mostly to
differentiate myself from the 'world revolution' Trotskyite socialists who now predominate on
the far-left.
That means I also take some inspiration from some fascists and national-syndicalists,
although I don't regard any of them as holy writ, either.
In my opinion, the number one success factor for a civilization is not what theory
it professes, but rather who controls it. Theories will always have to be modified to
suit the circumstances; but the character of a people is much harder to change.
China's prospering because it's controlled by Chinese engineers; our civilization is
suffocating because it's controlled by Jew-bankers and Masonic lawyers. Get rid of them
first, and we can debate monetary theory till we're blue in the face.
I think that applying the old concepts of Marxism is no longer possible in the west since
there is hardly a genuine proletariat as a proper class any more with the deindustrialisation
and the transfer of major industries to China and other Asian and Latin American countries.
On the other hand the lumpenproletariat has grown and will grow further with greater
automation in industry.
Many more people are now unemployed, underemployed, in service industries, part-time and
temporary jobs, or ageing old age pensioners and retirees.
With the greater atomisation of the individual, break up of families, greater mobility,
the concept of classes rooted long-term in their communities seems less applicable. You could
say most of the global proletariat is now in China.
It would seem that many of the Trotskyites of the past have now become neocons favouring
capitalism and imperialist military intervention under guise of "human rights" promotion, as
have some other communists.
Paul Edward Gottfried's "The Strange Death of Marxism" seems to offer some explanations
but is not of much use in developing a new activism capable of taking on the system or
providing a more viable alternative.
classical concepts of socialism and capitalism, and left and right politics
The left/right concept is no longer valid. For one thing, of what use is a $15. minimum
wage (apparently a standard "left" plank) if there aren't any jobs? Take a look at Andrew
Yang. At least he is posing the right questions.
Andrew Yang's Pitch to America – We Must Evolve to a New Form of
Capitalism
"... Those who really, really didn't want socialism, thought that it would be a great idea to fake it – so people won't miss it so much. Prime examples of this great idea – fake it, so hopefully you won't have to make it – are Nazi Germany and currently – the greatest democracy. ..."
Marks **** s Hitler, but Hitler was pretty good at *** ing Marks too. Listen to this logic: The party that Hitler belonged
to, was called National-Socialist, yet he hated communist and attacked Russia.
Communism and socialism are the same. There never was communism – that's what they were "aspiring" to become in some distant
utopian future. So Hitler attacking Russia because they were communist is like US attacking France because they are capitalists.
Total propaganda BS on the part of the Nazis – calling themselves "Socialists".
The whole last century has been spent on one major task by the west: Combat socialism. Mainly by wars, but propaganda also.
And yet, socialism refuses to die. And the idea will never die. I know, someone will say, where have you been in the last almost
30 years? Capitalism defeated socialism in the cold war. Not so fast. Capitalism may have scored a major victory but it may have
sustained a mortal self-inflicted wound of propaganda nature. In the last 100 years 3 major ways to fight socialism domestically
were discovered:
FDR approach – include little bit of socialism into capitalism, to prevent a lot of socialism (total takeover). Nazi
Germany approach – include none of socialism, but only use its name for propaganda and pretend that all is hunky-dory, and
that "socialism" is already here. US approach – include a little bit of fake socialism in order to prevent a lot of real
socialism from taking over. That's how multiculturalism came into being.
Again, I must say that the best approach was FDR's. If capitalism wants to survive – that's the way to go. Despite all the
numerous wars against socialist countries, US haven't been able to erase the idea of socialism like they were hoping for.
If you want proof of this, just look at the last US election. Along comes Bernie Sanders, just mentions the name socialism
few times – claiming himself to be one – socialist, and wins the primaries, only to be robbed by the Democratic mafia bosses who
couldn't stand the idea of "socialist" running for president – after all the US has done to destroy socialism.
By the way, I think that Bernie is a good guy, but he is probably as much socialist as Adolf used to be. It still demonstrates
the power of the socialist idea to attract people. Pretty clever propaganda ploy on Bernie's part, but there was no chance in
hell the "democrats" would let him run for president on that platform.
And he would have defeated Trump. Talking about exercise in futility – US trying to erase the idea of socialism. That's what
made them inflict the mortal wound of fake socialism on themselves and might in the end destroy them. FDR approach was the best
– little bit of socialism to prevent a lot of it.
How about " Nope ". Communism is an end ; Socialism is a means that Marx considered the most likely to
enable the end-point to be achieved. It's akin to saying that a mall (the end) and a car (the means) are "the same
thing", on the basis that a car is an efficient way to get to the mall.
To flesh it out: Communism is explicitly anarchic, and is mainly characterised by
material abundance and the fulfillment of (self-limited) wants;
no ownership of property (not by individuals or the state);
no class stratification (and hence no political organisations whatsoever);
work as a 'prime want' (not a disutility that must be compensated).
This all seems slightly silly when you write it down, so Marx recognised that there had to be a ' radical transformation
of consciousness ' whereby people didn't want what they couldn't have.
He reckoned that the best way was to entrust an enlightened clique (the ' vanguard of the proletariat ') to take control,
and to force society towards the 'end' by coercion – until such time as the end was in sight, whereupon the enlightened vanguard
would relinquish control and society would be on a glide path to utopia.
And doing that specifically requires that the 'vanguard' controls production and allocation decisions during the transition
– which he thought (wrongly) means that the means of production must be owned by the State.
Hence Socialism.
His end is correct so long as you add one adjective. A society free of artificial stratification is a desirable
end. His means were totally wrong because he was a fucking idiot (as well as being a parasitic charlatan). The State
would not relinquish control under any circumstances, and will actively undermine any mechanism that raises everyone (because
that would narrow the gap between the political class and the demos can't have that).
A society free of artificial stratification is where we will end up once technological progress gets past its next 'knee' ('
The Singularity ') it would be hastened if the parasites in the global political class are put to the sword.
I don't think you understood my argument here. You are correct. Socialism and Communism are not the same in philosophical sense.
My argument was that for all practical purposes Communism never existed – and probably never will. Only Socialism existed in one
form or another in few dozen countries.
Those who really, really didn't want socialism, thought that it would be a great idea to fake it – so people won't miss
it so much. Prime examples of this great idea – fake it, so hopefully you won't have to make it – are Nazi Germany and currently
– the greatest democracy.
So this neoliberal stooge woke up and started advocating mixed economy. Very interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... What we see right away is that even now, with all the privatization etc. that has taken place, government at various levels employs about 15 percent of the work force – roughly half in education, another big chunk in health care, and then a combination of public services and administration. ..."
"... Follow The New York Times Opinion section on ..."
Maybe not everything should be privatized. There are private activities that could plausibly be made public, like utilities, which
in some cases are publicly owned already.
There
are private activities that could plausibly be made public, like utilities, which in some cases are publicly owned already. Credit
Eric Thayer for The New York Times
A mind is a terrible thing to lose, especially if the mind in question is president of the United States. But I feel like taking
a break from that subject. So let's talk about something completely different, and probably irrelevant.
I've had several interviews lately in which I was asked whether capitalism had reached a dead end, and needed to be replaced with
something else. I'm never sure what the interviewers have in mind; neither, I suspect, do they. I don't think they're talking about
central planning, which everyone considers discredited. And I haven't seen even an implausible proposal for a decentralized system
that doesn't rely on price incentives and self-interest – i.e., a market economy with private property, which most people would consider
capitalism.
So maybe I'm being dense or lacking in imagination, but it seems to be that the choice is still between markets and some kind
of public ownership, maybe with some decentralization of control, but still more or less what we used to mean by socialism. And everyone
either thinks of socialism as discredited, or pins the label on stuff – like social insurance programs – that isn't what we used
to mean by the word.
But I've been wondering, exactly how discredited is socialism, really? True, nobody now imagines that what the world needs is
the second coming of Gosplan. But have we really established that markets are the best way to do everything? Should everything be
done by the private sector? I don't think so. In fact, there are some areas, like education, where the public sector clearly does
better in most cases, and others, like health care, in which the case for private enterprise is very weak. Add such sectors up, and
they're quite big.
In other words, while Communism failed, there's still a pretty good case for a mixed economy – and public ownership/control could
be a significant, although not majority, component of that mix. My back of the envelope says that given what we know about economic
performance, you could imagine running a fairly efficient economy that is only 2/3 capitalist, 1/3 publicly owned – i.e., sort-of-kind-of
socialist.
I arrive at that number by looking at employment data
. What we see right away is that even now, with all the privatization etc. that has taken place, government at various levels
employs about 15 percent of the work force – roughly half in education, another big chunk in health care, and then a combination
of public services and administration.
Looking at private sector employment, we find that another 15 percent of the work force is employed in education, health, and
social assistance. Now, a large part of that employment is paid for by public money – think Medicare dollars spent at private hospitals.
Much of the rest is paid for by private insurers, which exist in their current role only thanks to large tax subsidies and regulation.
And there's no reason to think the private sector does these things better than the public. Private insurers don't obviously provide
a service that couldn't be provided, probably more cheaply, by national health insurance. Private hospitals aren't obviously either
better or more efficient than public. For-profit education is actually a disaster area.
So you could imagine an economy in which the bulk of education, health, and social assistance currently in the private sector
became public, with most people at least as well off as they are now.
Advertisement
Then there are other private activities that could plausibly be public. Utilities are heavily regulated, and in some cases are
publicly owned already. Private health insurance directly employs hundreds of thousands of people, with doubtful social purpose.
And I'm sure I'm missing a few others.
By and large, other areas like retail trade or manufacturing don't seem suitable for public ownership – but even there you could
see some cases. Elizabeth Warren is suggesting public manufacture of
generic drugs , which isn't
at all a stupid idea.
Put all of this together, and as I said, you could see an economy working well with something like 1/3 public ownership.
Now, this wouldn't satisfy people who hate capitalism. In fact, it wouldn't even live up to the old slogan about government controlling
the economy's "commanding heights." This would be more like government running the boiler in the basement. Also, I see zero chance
of any of this happening in my working lifetime.
But I do think it's worth trying to think a bit beyond our current paradigm, which says that anything you could call socialist
has been an utter failure. Maybe not so much?
An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are already subscribed to this email.
View all New York Times newsletters. Paul Krugman has
been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He
won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography.
@ PaulKrugman
. Dr. Krugman missed the largest communist socialist organization in the USA - the military! The live on communes called bases.
They have everything provided including clothes, housing, food and training. They get routine exercise as they prepare to defend
the country in a world with no credible threat. It is like summer camp year round. The biggest irony? This communist orgsnization
fought and trained for conflicts with communists. .
To see what the government can do to support the economy we don't need to look farther than our own borders. The government
has been crucial to the development and maintenance of many economic activities as they exist today. Much of our shiny technology
owes its existence to government investment. Government investment was crucial to the development of flat screens and touch screens.
GPS based products rely for their operation on continued government support. Mariana Mazzucato makes the point more completely
in her book "the Entrepreneurial State." We should re-examine many areas of the economy to see where the government already has
a positive impact. Where we find positive effects, we should try to extend those effects in the same and other enterprises - we
should also look to see what is not working and eliminate or curtail the negative impacts of those activities. Outdoor recreation
and tourism is another area of the economy that thrives on government support. Those activities contribute far more to the local
economy of many rural areas than what they currently rely on in extractive activities like mining, oil and gas production and
logging. Expanding outdoor activities and tourism will also require finding ways to reduce the risk of fires in many remote areas,
which will also create jobs. (anyone for raking?) So thank you Professor Krugman for highlighting the possibilities of a mixed
economy, but as you suggest, we need to broaden our imagination.
Can the state be a better capitalist? I always hear how Norway has done an amazing job of creating a sovereign wealth fund,
funded by their petroleum production taxes and fees. Last I checked, the US produces a lot of petroleum, but we don't have a sovereign
wealth fund with $165,000 per person. Do we see our severance fees and royalties in other ways or do socialist economies do a
better job in managing the funds?
Capitalism can be a bit of a boxing match. Not everything needs to be (should be?) a boxing match. A little Fri nite music
for Krug - Alison Krause doing Simon & Garfunkel https://youtu.be/hci5q3G6-FA
Dr. Krugman - Please provide concrete examples of how other nations deal with such concepts as public/private in realistic
ways that help the ordinary citizen. Bashing what we've got without profiling meaningful reforms only goes so far.
The roots of capitalism lie in how we create capital - on the basis of debt and, for the most part, by private sector banks.
It's done using fractional reserve banking - taking money created by the state (promissory notes) and lending it over and over
- by a factor of around eight times. The key - money is only created on the promise of a "profit", ie, economic growth. It's why
GDP growth is always the measure of "progress". As this system becomes ever more dysfunctional and our thoughts turn to sustainability,
it is logical we need to think about different systems of creating money. Why not by the state? 2008 is the answer to anyone who
says it won't work - private sector banks created commercial paper out of fraudulent debt - not rational, efficient, or fair by
any measure. China is an example of an economy where the state creates commercial money. It seems to be doing rather well, especially
in building infrastructure that benefits peoples lives. Of course, we criticize China for not playing by the "rules" - our rules,
of course, rules that are driving us over a cliff. I believe it's fundamental that we think of ways in which we can reduce the
amount of commercial money created for profit by private sector banks in favour of money created for the common good. A nice side
effect will be the increasing irrelevance of private-sector "wealth" - a way of scaling back inequality.
Krugman the liberal with a conscience, wouldn't go so far as to point out the many pros vs the cons of the EU social democracy
systems. That would be going too far. The Democratic Party still need to raise plenty of corporate money to run in 2020. He'll
continue with the anti Trump, anti GOP tirades. And write MAYBE not everything should be privatized as a profit center---in an
operating democracy. Americans will still be left uninformed about what they should be demanding from the govt they stand in long
lines to elect. Thus be left more vulnerable to GOP propaganda and maybe even future Trumps, now swimming up from the swamp.
So why doesn't our liberal with a conscience make concrete comparisons in real people terms with our PAST GENERATIONS when
the middle class was expanding, and with other capitalist democracies now? American past examples are all there---upward mobility,
unions, secure pensions, high tax rates on the wealthy, better regulations, infrastructure and highway building, low cost college
tuition at state universities--etc etc . .... etc. The data is all there, as would befit an economist who won a special Nobel
in economics. And who now works with an institute at City University of NY that studies income inequality. For more informative
reading instead, read Leonhardt's column--When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer. And the recent Edsall column on big money influence
in our politics. That's a topic most columnists and pundits avoid, except for 1 line occasionaly to show they're hip to it. Then
they go on to something else to stay safe and centrist in line with our warped political spectrum. As our columnists stay careful
in our FOX News/GOP/corporate political culure, we get more realistic, informative mini columns from many reader commenters instead
of the columnists. It's the reader commenters, not the columnists who up the sales of the NYTimes.
I read that Canada avoided our 08 crash because it had earlier refused to merge with US banks. Maybe that's sensible 'conservativsm'---
to conserve their more balanced banking system and economy. Bernie Sanders once had a senate hearing on health care with witnessess
from Canada and 4 other countries on how they pay for and use health care for all. Our media ignored it---I happened to catch
it on cspan. Is Krugman even aware of this? Citizens of dozens of other countries wouldn't put up even with Obamacare, which is
a vast improvement over the previous non system. But it keeps insurance profits subsidized by our taxes. Abroad, if not single
payer, then their govts regulate premium prices for their citizens with insurance mandates. If they didn't the citizens would
vote them out. This difference should rate a few columns by Krugman the economist, concerned about inequality. But he avoids these
comparisons. It's how he and the NYT are positioning themselves in our politics---humanitarian, but not too much. At least we
have reader comments to give some realistic data on other countries to Americans who are mostly kept in the dark by their media.
@Meredith I'm sorry Meredith, but your charge is unfair. I don't know how long you've been reading Krugman's column in the
NYT, but he's literally published DOZENS of them comparing our healthcare 'system' with that of other countries, before, during,
and after the implementation of Obamacare. And then there's his NYT blog, where wrote similarly but on a more advanced level.
The last thing you could say about Krugman is that he's been 'captured' by the wealthy elite. Anything but.
re: the case for a mixed economy The choice of markets or public ownership or any combination of the two is not the answer
or even the question. By the way communism has never been given a fair shot. You mentioned the key to any discussion of economics...
self-interest. Communisms downfall has always been self-interest (GREED). Greed comes in a number of guises. Military dictatorships
or the NYSE. Capitalism's dead end is its ultimate goal... One conglomeration with one CEO.
@morgan If Communism had a downfall, then it had a shot, and it failed. There's no reason to think that, as a system run by
fallible human beings, the outcome would EVER be any different. Capitalism, on the other hand, has many flavors, almost all of
which we ignore here in the USA, except the one that seeks to destroy our public institutions in the name of an extreme libertarianism
masquerading as a Utopia of 'free markets'. Whether by committee or by the wealthy, redistribution of wealth by the few has always
been a fool's game. Regulatory vigilance, constant reform, and transparent oversight, has proven itself the best partner of capitalism
in every case. There IS a middle ground with capitalism that we ignore for the extremes of either wealth, or control.
Krugman says "But have we really established that markets are the best way to do everything? Should everything be done by the
private sector? I don't think so." Gosh, don't THINK so? Krugman cautiously asks the question. He doesn't want to offend any centrist
Democratic party leaders needing campaign money, and one of them may someday pick him as Treasury Secretary. CNN's Ali Velsh who
is from Canada, stated flatly on TV that free market health care has never worked in any country. The incentives are not aligned
to provide care that was deemed a right in most modern nations in 20th Century. But not deemed a right in USA. Krugman, as a winner
of a special Nobel prize in economics, might actually compare the international GINI Score ranking of countries on their citizens'
economic moblity. Americans ranks behind other democracies---that are also capitalist countries. Othe countries like profits too,
but profits are not prioritized above all else like here. But to criticize this underlying causation is to look too left wing
liberal socialist unAmerican, etc etc. Krugman shies away. That would seem the perfect topic for a Krugman-type columnist who
titles himself a liberal with a conscience.
Hey, where's the usual easy Trump bashing that gives us all such emotional catharsis? Is Krugman realizing his anti Trump/Gop
columns aren't enough, that we actually need more? Such as questioning the basic tenets of our political culture? That it's not
only Trump that is weakening our democracy? This column is just a start---Krugman stays careful not to go too far to criticize
our warped norms.
Omg! Warrens idea of public mfgr of generic drugs "isn't a stupid idea"? Is that all you can think up to say, PK? Tell us why
it ISN'T stupid. PK wants to look like a humanitarian but still stick with the main Democratic party positions---but this party
has to vie with GOP for campaign money. And PK is seen by the Times as its prestigious 'liberal' columnist. To not look too liberal
by our warped standards, PK in effect helps to marginalize any ideas that are truly progressive and needed. They're not stupid,
but are they smart? For whom? Policies that are called progressive in the US, are centrist in other capitalist democracies---
but keep that dark. Hey, 'liberal', where's your conscience you told us about? Talk not about those who hate capitalism, but those
who want to keep it, if it is properly regulated by elected govt. Talk about how our politics are regulated by corporations --through
donor money and norm setting, esp for the media. It's obvious--our columnists are careful to stay safe within the guidelines set
up. There are many ways to influence 'free speech' without actual govt censorship. We see this daily in our news media, careful
to stay within guidelines.
Economies are human, social creations, they are not at all like solar systems, for example. As human creations, they should
serve human interests. That will not happen independent of the political system of democracy. In the US, democracy is seriously
corrupted by the power of oligarchs, so the failures of the US economy to do its job cannot be solved by purely economic re-arranging.
Assuming that power is back in the hands of people, what should we expect from an economy? Three things: 1. sufficient production
of goods and services (this is the free market's strong point), 2. fair (not necessarily equal) distribution of these (this a
the free market's weak point), and 3. jobs that satisfy workers' needs for sociability and dignity. (This is a strong point of
Marx's thought.) # 2 and 3 require an intelligent, well-functioning democracy. Framing this in old, worn out terms like capitalism
and socialism, terms undermined by decades of rhetorical conflict, is not helpful...
A perhaps implausible proposal for a decentralized system that doesn't rely in a market economy with private property (which
most people would consider capitalism): - The Firm in Illyria: Market Syndicalism, by Benjamin Ward, published in The American
Economic Review , Vol. 48, No. 4 (Sep., 1958).
I remember seeing Dr Krugman in a Sunday TV panel discussion on US economic and tax policy. During his turn he spoke strictly
in terms of the merits as policy. His fellow panelist George Will followed him and wisely avoided expressing any opinions about
economic policy and instead made a sarcastic remark about the political chances of implementing the policy being discussed. I
like to think we can discuss policy proposals whether or not they have a chance politically to become law. The alternative might
not even appeal to George Will.
Hey, I think you are talking about China....the proportions are not quite what you suggest (1/3 public) but by incorporating
capitalism into a communist model, they are able to get the benefits of both.
Public manufacture of generic drugs... Where, without competition, would be the incentive for maintaining quality and/or efficiency?
Where would be the incentive for improvement of the drugs themselves - increased effectiveness, less side effects, etc? Orwell's
horse ("I must work harder!") was a figment of his imagination. Krugman forgets just what is the part of capitalism that brings
the most to the table, competition.
@MS Competition for what? Wealth, of course. And we're back to those whose greed will never be satisfied. Why not "cooperation"?
A competition for who can do the most good for humanity.
@MS Is MS really think that competition among the drug lords of big pharma is truly competition ? Reminds me of the book on
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations with a photo of a huge factory belching smoke on his cover. When Adam Smith wrote his book in the
late 18th century, a factory was ten people making pins.
As I understand it, most, if not all, of the attempts at creating a "socialist" economy haven't really merited the name. They've
tended to be autocratic regimes that falsely used the term "socialism" as a means of suggesting to their citizens that they would
have a more participatory government. They were cynical charades. I would love to see a true socialist element in our economy,
i.e., one that actually placed the needs of the citizens above the needs of plutocrats. Healthcare, in particular, seems to be
an ideal candidate for public ownership. Too many companies today in the field are unnecessarily driving up the cost of care for
all of us.
Krugman's thought experiment here seems to too readily accept that the questioner of "capitalism" knows what they're asking
about, deflected by wanting speculation about whatever else -- supplements? ("mixed economy") Alternatives? I've spent many years
with this issue, if I may say so. One aspect that ready critics of "capitalism" don't seem to appreciate is the difference between
capital-intensive business and capitalISM. The latter is about profit at any cost and tends to be predatory. The former is normal
business whose investors accept a reasonable margin and sustain concerns about employee quality of life, corporate citizenship,
professional ethics, etc. as part of normal business. Normal business accepts a degree of regulatory constraint for the sake of
a level playing field and reliable futures market (in an idiomatic sense), which is required for long-term investment. Libertarian
Republicans apparently regard all regulation as "Socialist," but actually socialism is just a bad theory of democratic republicanism
(small-d, small-r). If one examines the history of so-called "socialism," it's a history of desire for a democratic republic without
much sophistication about making an economy innovative, resiliant, etc.; and a bad sense of government that enables prosperity.
Questioning whether "capitalism" has run its course is an unwitting invitation to have one's sense of economics and good government
enlightened.
It's shocking that an economist finds a mixed economy has to "have a case made for it". It is very obvious that the private
sector is not going to undertake any endeavor that helps everybody and not just its own competitive advantage. And it's obvious
that regulating the private sector doesn't put them on the right road; just from running amok. Infrastructure, healthcare, education,
environment, climate change -- the private sector -- you kidding?? And of course we have the great benefits of Citizens United
to thank for assisting corporations to focus our politics upon what needs to be done. The GOP has succeeded beyond all expectations
in ruining the country by doing favors for corporations.
Socialized agriculture, socialized defense companies, socialized churches, socialized border security walls and socialized
tax cuts are what america has. Republicans are hypocrites. Without the huge government subsidies that farmers get-many many billions,
including but not limited to the 12 billion from trump after china imposed soyabean tariffs, the farmers would all be out of business
by now. Defense companies are financed by ten and even hundreds of billions of pentagon spending. They can't survive on exports
to saudi arabia alone. The pentagon gets hundreds of billions from government when there has been no war since world war 2, other
than the ones it created in vietnam and iraq. Evangelical churches, GOP enterprises. are financed by tax charity, basically by
government and they are socialist organizations. Trump wants to spend 5 billion of tax payer money for a border wall, after talking
nonsense about making mexico paying for it-it would be a socialist border wall. The 2017 gop tax cut is socialist welfare for
billionaires and corporations. It has added 1 trillion to the federal deficit. Trump and his party are the socialist party serving
the top 0.1 percent of the wealthiest.
A mixed economy is the best economic model. Capitalism is purely about profit. A purely private economy would create a society
with a handful of ultrawealthy people, a small middle class and many tens or hundreds of millions of poor people with no basic
health and education services- a system like the one that existed in the king, baron and serf era in england, and in many developing
countries. We would have a trump tower with a corrupt and criminal politician and businessman sitting in it, and homeless people
and slums surrounding the building for miles. Companies would pollute and destroy the air and water with impunity. The air in
the cities would be hard to breathe, and the water would contain poisonous chemicals. Many millions would starve, be unable to
go to school and get health services, and live in dirt and squalor. Global climate change would accelerate and the human species
would soon be extinct. All relations with friends and allies alike would be purely business transactions and russia, china and
hackers would be an much bigger threat than they are. saudi arabia can murder journalists-we will look the other way, just selling
them arms and buying their oil.A purely public economy would give us job security for life, and cheap products and services, but
they would all be poor in quality, and at the cost of higher taxes.When people want free electricity, and the local politician
wants to give it to them,the utility company goes bankrupt.There will be no innovation
For me this is one of the long awaited topics that I have been hoping Krugman would engage; Now more than ever we need discussions
of alternatives to the capitalism we have evolved to with its tacit assumption that it is the best of all possible models and
that growth is essential. Paul do you really believe that growth can be endless without environmental consequences? I would like
to see Krugman wade in on this and especially address newer discoveries of the de-growth movement embodied in stock flow consistent
modeling done by Tim Jackson (Prosperity without Growth) and others that show that virtually zero growth can be sustainable and
perhaps more stable than our current system.
There are 3 basic methods in a modern industrialized societies in which ownership of the means of production can be accomplished.
1. Ownership by a special group, called capitalists, or rentiers is apart from labor in enterprises which produce goods and services.
2. The government can own enterprise and employees like in the British Health Service can be state employees. The state can run
the enterprise at a profit or run it paid for partially or completely by the taxpayer. 3. As in Germany in Part labor can have
a voting share either complete as in a cooperative such as the Spanish Mondragon and ownership can be by the workers with a lead
worker or even Union Official managing the company. Many mixes are possible and all posibilities need to be seriously considered.
This has yet to be done in a serious or empirical fashion
What is the end game for right wingers? If everything is privatized and jobs are insecure, people will be afraid to spend.
And we'll live in a feudalistic society. Think about that before you take away working class pensions to give tax cuts to the
rich.
One of the biggest socialist enterprises in america is the federal reserve board. They poured 4.5 trillion into banks and the
economy to lower interest rates. It has turned out to be welfare for wall street and corporations. Trump and the wall street journal
editors are complaining about this socialism for corporations when they attack and criticize the fed chief. The fed needs to go
back to their main role-containing inflation. Let the stocks drop by 40 percent. The market will eventually adjust. With no place
for their money, and low bond and cd rates, the investors will go back into stocks. After all the fed money sloshing around in
the system has dried up banks and corporations will go back to paying mom and pop investors like you and me 5 percent. It will
be great for financial stability as well. People have been forced to take too much risk in the stock market for years because
of near zero interest savings and cd rates. Safe cds should pay interest rates well above inflation. Mortgage rates were low in
2008 even before the fed intervened. There was no need for the fed to pour in trillions. Fed intervention made sense till two
years ago. No longer-it is just socialism for billionaires. They should have raised interest rates much faster than they have
in the last two years and got out in a hurry. The interest rates are still too low. Mom and Pop investors are making a sacrifice
to make hedge fund managers and CEOs even wealthier.
Actually Krugman sells socialism in America short, as practiced before our Founders formally engraved it in the Constitution
with government operation of the mail. Before the term socialism was coined there were socialized sidewalks, public schools, socialized
fire departments, socialized police departments ET CETERA! with no one back then dissenting from necessary partial socialist governance.
It was only after the Civil War in the rightwing drift against socialism caused by the desires of massive private concentrated
wealth that the socialist menace began to be a thing. It isn't, it never was, tho it, socialism in practice, will continue, the
alternative being the alt-truth of for-profit governance, i.e. Medieval Feudalism sane peoples have long jettisoned as the ne
plus ultra of concentrated wealth incarnate. That's how absolute monarchs appointed themselves as heads of state, rule by the
wealthiest pirates (e.g. Donald Trump) of their time for which little-s socialism has always been the NECESSARY CORRECTIVE.
The rich people want to privatize more and make more money for themselves. Privatizing puts them beyond public scrutiny and
we wont really understand when they are failing us. We have to protect our democartic institutions and make income distribution
more equal.
Technology is about to change society in a most drastic way. Unless the transformation is properly controlled the outcome could
be disastrous. This enormous task cannot succeed without the government setting the strategy and providing the resources necessary
to implement if The Chinese government has defined the goals and is engaged in working out a process of implementation. They have
so far produced a successful version of a mixed economy. We may adopt perhaps a different mix but their example is worth to learn
from
It's an indication of how far we've fallen that an article like this has to make a case for a mixed economy. Even for Adam
Smith it was self-evident that government had a key role to play. When Smith talked the value of free markets he was not talking
about an uncontrolled private sector. He was talking about a new and better system that could be achieved if government would
stop the private sector from perverting the markets--through monopoly behavior and influence over government policy. He was FIGHTING
the kind of nonsense we have today. Krugman is actually arguing for the mainstream against the lunatic fringe. The idea that the
liberated private sector is going to solve all problems has no basis in historical fact. The strength of capitalism is its efficiency
in achieving its own ends. It will not miraculously assure the well-being of the population if government doesn't make it. It
will not defend the environment or educate the population. It will not even provide the resources for its own success. The should
be no question about the need for a mixed economy. It's the only way to get the job done.
I work for a government agency. I have worked for private enterprise in the past. In a very simplistic way, I think the main
difference between the two is that private enterprise takes in money, uses it to purchase goods and services and outputs something
with the purpose to generate more money. Public 'enterprise' takes in money, uses it to purchase goods and services and outputs
something with the purpose of improving (or if you like, maintaining) society. The issue is that money is easy to count, while
literacy and good roads are much more difficult to quantify. Also, I'm always struck by how private enterprise can do whatever
it likes because it has the freedom to completely fail. I think it's easy to use this metric to see where private enterprise is
not really appropriate. National parks, national defense, public infrastructure and so on; we don't want more money from these
things, and they can't fail like Nokia. What is really lacking is a public willing to have an extended and thoughtful discussion
on what we want as public goods, and what we think they are worth.
My real challange for Proff Krugman is to explain how an economy with zero or declining population would work it seems to me
that our capitalistic system needs an ever increasing population.
That is the big, unspoken, truth about the industrialized world that no one wants to talk about or acknowledge: material wealth
tends to lower birth rates. Like climate change, the deniers would have you believe something different, that the world is overpopulated
today and exploding tomorrow. The truth is, while global population is indeed increasing, the rate of increase is slowing down
dramatically, as people exit systemic poverty and enter into relative wealth that is a consequence of industrialization. The implication
is obvious even in our times of protectionism and manufactured xenophobia: if a market economy is to be maintained and there are
limited supplies of workers, we either need to encourage domestic birth rates, or accept the idea of immigration and worker productivity
(and just compensation) as a necessary part of transitioning to a sustainable human presence on this planet. There is no way out
of this conundrum. Just as with climate change, hard choices will need to be made--our desires, wishes, and pet ideologies won't
matter if we wish to provide a decent future for our children and their children. Else, what is this all for?
@David Staszsk : We're approaching 350 million at what seems like breakneck speed. Aren't you confusing the US with Italy,
where the birth rate is barely equal to the death rate?
@Craig Hill But it isn't. While most of the industrialized West is at or below the replacement rate (births/deaths), the US
is one of the few that doesn't have to worry (as much). Why? Our heretofore open attitude toward immigration. But, like everything
else, Trump and the GOP is destroying that advantage as well. Talk to a fruit farmer and ask them about their harvest plans. Their
loss of income due to an inability to hire labor is just the beginning.
Some industries require heavy investment that only Government can provide. How would America produce stealth fighters and aircraft
carriers, and operate them, without many tens of billions of Government spending on a handful of private companies that produce
defense products like Northrop and Boeing ? The pentagon greatly wastes money because of government throwing money at them with
no accountability whatsoever, producing 20,000 dollar toilet seats. The GOP and their supporters do all that while they deny unlucky
and disabled people food stamps. China's massive government investment in the last 40 years, in their export oriented industries,
education and defense has been a huge success for them. The US has been on the decline for 40 years now, because of it's overdependance
on private investment. The US Government needs to invest a lot more in it's people-in education, health care and by attracting
immigrants to cover labor shortages in some areas, to compete with China in the 21st century, but with the 21 trillion debt and
many GOP reactionaries(basically ignorant and some crazy and misguided people calling it 'socialism'). Private companies lead
America's innovation and create new services and jobs, but Government and it's enterprises play a crucial role. If Obama had not
intervened in 2008 GM and Ford would only be found in history books.
Why do we need government ? Companies and their shareholders only care about profit. Left to themselves rapacious and unethical
corporations adopt unfair and monopolistic practices, produce poor quality and overpriced products, and provide substandard services
and cheat consumers. Historically, they have even hired armies, and occupied and impoverished countries in the European colonial
era. Companies, when there is no regulation, heavily pollute the air and water, pouring industrial waste into the oceans and our
drinking water. Global climate change and deforestation, worsened by non-government and destructive government policies is causing
wild fires, floods, droughts and hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and higher carbon monoxide levels, and
accelerating at an unprecedented pace. Corporations, overall, do not protect us from our enemies and from hackers(except for a
few defense and software companies).Drug companies and insurance companies keep hiking the prices of even generic drugs that have
been in the market since the 1950s and 70s.Public steel, utility and telecommunication companies. and collective farms have been
a failure however.Often, there is no real accountability for Government money and services, and employees are not motivated, knowing
their jobs are secure even if they don't show up,and a lack of competition results in shoddy products and poor service. But public
schools,universities and local government provide good,low cost services.
Implausible or not, Parecon (for Participatory Economy), a proposal described in the book The Political Economy of Participatory
Economics by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, is a decentralized system that doesn't rely on price incentives and self-interest,
The perfect example of the advantages of public ownership is the Los Angeles power company. In 2001, Enron wreaked havoc (and
profited from it) in California's newly deregulated private electricity markets. The targeted manipulations sent prices skyrocketing,
and triggered rolling blackouts elsewhere throughout the state, while Los Angeles remained untouched by any of it. Prices in LA
remained stable, and power was uninterrupted. Another benefit came from Los Angeles Water & Power's independence from a profit
motive. Faced with growing power demand, instead of building a new plant (which would have ensured growing revenues to a private
power company), LA W&P paid for each household to receive a compact fluorescent bulb. The resulting reduced consumption by its
more than 1 million housing units reduced LA W&P's income, but eliminated the need for a new plant.
Thanks for motivating me to read again a clearly written clear-headed history of, and manifesto for recovering, the achievements
of our "mixed economy" - Hacker and Pierson, American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper
(2017).
@MarkerZero it is great that you appreciate Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. I very much have been influenced by them and quoted
them in my post as well. Check out Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson; Making America Great Again: The Case for the Mixed Economy"
- Foreign Affairs - May/June 2016)
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-03-21/making
-...
"Put all of this together, and as I said, you could see an economy working well with something like 1/3 public ownership. Now,
this wouldn't satisfy people who hate capitalism." Perhaps not, but would it satisfy ""capitalists" who hate socialism? Over the
years I have had the pleasure of meeting Americans visiting in Norway who, rather that finding the socialist hell-hole they expected
to encounter, found that things they'd brand socialism worked surprisingly well here. What has often intrigued me has been their
unwillingness to apply, even as an experiment, the "Norwegian way" in their own country. Is there an inherent fear in Americans
of being proven wrong that they cannot live with? Case in point: every year in the wake of snowstorms and rainstorms hundreds
of thousands of people across America lose their power for days and weeks. Why don't they put their cables in the ground where
the wind cannot get to them? Why do they insist on paying over and over and over again to put the cables in the air? Is there
some particular capitalist "intelligence" that dictates that is better to pay $100 ten times over than to pay $500 once and be
done with it?
Our government built the interstate highway system using competitive bidding with private sector contractors. The deign specs
and overall management was the government's responsibility. A fantastic success. WW II was successfully executed by our government
overseeing the military/allies and the private economy to defeat two powerful enemies. They did for the COMMON GOOD of the world
not to maximize profits. When government works it can implement grand achievement. When corrupted by free marketeers nothing gets
done.
In fact, a mixed or (better) hybrid economy should include three sectors of unequal but flexible size: a. the private market-oriented,
profit-driven system, b. the public service-oriented and social equity-driven system, and the cooperate-associative, proximity-oriented
and non-profit system. Each answers a clear needs of human societies, each corresponds to a basic instinct of the species: the
aggressive acquisitive drive of the meat-eating killer, the stability expected by the family-breeding tribe member, the solidarity
and cooperation needed by the pack-hunter. The first is essentially dynamic, geared for progress and growth, the second is basically
static, geared for fairness and predictability, the third is adaptive and responsive to immediate needs. Their relative sizes
should be allowed to vary according to the evolution of social and political life, science and technology, and material survival
conditions -- and political rules should make sure that each survives and plays its role.
@Yves Leclerc I couldn't have said it better myself. Joyeuses fêtes, fellow Montrealer. & while we're at it, let's raise a
glass for Hydro-Quebec, our much-maligned healthcare system & the non-profits who contribute so much to making our lives easier
in our wonderful city. La Porte Jaune, I'm thinking of you.
We should make public all those things necessary for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that, were they left to the
free market, would not be available to one and all equally. We already do that with police and fire protection and public infrastructure.
We should also add health care and education at all levels to that list, for a start.
You have to start by completely discarding the word "socialism." It aborts every potentially useful exploration of any kind
of concept. I know that's not justified, but it's the sad truth. Lots of good ideas could be aired out fairly if called by some
other names and discussed in terms that specifically denounced "socialism."
@John Call it capitalistic humanism, or humanistic capitalism. It should put needs of people before (or at least on equal footing
with) needs of profit. As we used to say in the old days....
Maybe Prof. Krugman owes an apology to Bernie Sanders, whose plan for Sinle Payer Healthcare he derided as "rainbows and puppy
dogs" during the last presidential campaign.
I found this entry by Krugman is awfully weak, but it's not too surprising. Robert Reich, for instance, has a recent short
video out about this issue of when to privatize and when not to, and it's more thought out. I hate to think this, but Krugman's
apparent weakness on this issue seems to reflect what I see is a major problem with the "big media" like the NYT. It's mostly
all Republicans all the time, even if it's total criticism of Republicans, and harsh criticism of Republicans is not the same
as developing alternative views (e.g., Rachel Maddow nonstop criticism of Republicans). You just never hear sustained coverage
about serious alternative ideas and the groups working on them. You have to go somewhere else to see that sort of news. There's
hardly any sustained investigation into what you could call progressive left views, ideas, and actions. The big media is incredibly
biased in this regard, and so it's not too surprising that Krugman, for some reason, seems so incapable of expressing alternative
ideas to privatization and capitalism.
Averous and greed are what drive capitalist economies. But there is nothing in the book of human nature that says they must
be the only characteristics that drive capitalist economies. Why not compassion and empathy?
Hey Paul, Do not cut your "life time" short. Problem with economists or whatever your called is that you can not see what's
coming because you are sworn to look through those broken glasses. Capitalism and for that matter PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY,
are two of the most ridiculous delusional concepts that selfishness has ever conned us with. I mean, really Paul, how can somebody
who is going to be dead eventually own any "THING". We can not even own our own bodies for that long. All so, this ridiculous
notion is that there is not ENOUGH therefore we have to hoard what we have... BTW Paul, there are an estimated 8,000,000 people
starving to death in just in that Nation that the Saudis want to own. Come on, Paul. It just makes sense for everyone to have
what they need regardless of what some billionaire might thik he/she "owns".
It's been my experience that markets are really good at what they do up until the point at which they are really bad. I keep
a running list of market failures, which includes but is not limited to: police departments, fire departments, public health departments,
pharmaceuticals, journalism, and education. Pharmaceuticals: The fact that we are running out of new antibiotics is a market failure
which can be solved be subsuming new drug development into public health departments (most drug development is government funded
US university backed research anyway). Journalism: The market solution to journalism is the cable news business model which prizes
infotainment, eye balls on the screen, and click bait above real journalism. Real journalism is funded by charitable donations
like paying $44 per month to The New York Times, for example. The market solution for education is that rich people get really
good schools and poor people get really bad schools. If you live in a state with a high GDP per capita you get better schools
than poorer states, for example see the state Arizona. What is the business model for education? If the thing you are producing
cannot be exchanged in a market it has no value. Even pro-free market economists recognized that light houses were considered
public goods and that by collectively allocating public resources for them they facilitated commerce and increased wealth. The
fact that most republicans ignore this today is purely spiteful.
The Second Income Plan provides a Third Path - having the advantages of capitalism while sharply reducing inequality and many
other disadvantages. It can be combined with a Universal Basic Income with no net cost to the treasury. See: SECOND INCOMES at
aesopinstitute.org Here is a path to ending concern about the stock market that makes possible greater returns. 85-90% of an individual's
funds should be invested in Treasury Bills, the safest place to put money on this planet. The remaining funds can best be invested
with modest amounts, as highly leveraged as possible, in a substantial number of high risk opportunities (ideally an Angel investment
portfolio). This is the prescription for investors by Nassim Taleb in his book - THE BLACK SWAN: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.
(See page 205)
" For-profit education is actually a disaster area." The City University of New York is an obviously a prime example of the
excellence of public education if it employs a professor of your obvious ineptitude. BTW, where did you matriculate? If, by picking
any one of a dozen private, for-profit, rip-off colleges you are making a case for public education, you obviously haven't been
working with public school students lately. In my upper middle class community, the public high school, fed by a half dozen public
grade schools, is, with numerous exceptions, nevertheless graduating students who have a mediocre grade school education. And
at least a dozen of the teachers, highly paid and highly protected, couldn't pass an ordinary, private university entrance exam.
I never cease to be amazed at the astounding ineptitude of the public education system, while the private, Catholic system continues
to roll out educated citizens. (I'm not Catholic). A generalization like yours is certainly indicative of the failure of Yale
University.
@Good John Fagin That's odd. So many other countries are doing a much better job in public education. Check out the OECD PISA
results if you want to see how your argument against public education holds up.
Re:Elizabeth Warren's idea of the US government manufacturing generic drugs -it is a great idea. According to Ralph Nader most
of our antibiotics are manufactured in China. That worries me and it should worry you.
Let's face it, healthcare is undoubtedly the 800 pound gorilla in the room when it comes to a debate on the relationship between
public and private economies. Many NYT commenters want to see Medicare for All become a reality in order to cut out all the profiteering
in healthcare, and so that we would have a universal national one size fits all healthcare system. To this I say that Medicare
profiteering is rampant with waste fraud and abuse by doctors and hospitals accounting for as much as 40% of Medicare's costs.
So, if we really want to socialize healthcare, and take care of everyone, and control the costs we already have a national healthcare
system. It is called the VA. In the VA the government owns all the hospitals and all the medical staff are government employees.
We really need VA healthcare for everyone. Again, if one believes that socialism is the answer to solving our largest crisis,
healthcare, and we also believe that no one should ever profit from providing healthcare, then VA healthcare for all is the only
option.
One important rule to understand the capitalist-socialist dichotomy: Capitalism has no national allegiance; socialism is required
to adhere to political allegiances
It might be pointed out that even Adam Smith would have supported most of this. His primary thesis was that government has
to set the rules or the private sector will go off perverting the free market he so valued. He also had no illusions about the
private sector delivering education, social services, or other necessary functions. This idea that the unchained private sector
is the solution to all problems is not free market economics -- it's wildly radical nonsense. The private sector, left to its
own devices, will undermine the free market and the conditions needed for its success.
Well, my view is that "capitalism" and "socialism" (or "communism") do not exist and never could - over the longer term. The
flirtation with "communism" was (or is) a "flash in the pan" relatively speaking and pure "capitalism" would be similarly disastrous
if tried - consider the near attempt of the contemporary United States. In other words a "mixed economy" or "social democracy"
is a "no-brainer" - and I think it a major embarrassment to the humanity that any of us thought differently in this our modern
era. We are unfortunately seemingly naturally inclined to "black and white" or "all or nothing" thinking - but we can be schooled
to overcome it for our own benefit if we so allow. Much of the sad experience of the last 150 years - and particularly the last
80 - could have been avoided if one Karl Marx had not been a chauvinistic and egotistical nationalist who wanted to go down in
history as the father of a revolution in Germany that would be much bigger and better than the one in France. He wanted the "workers
of the world' to "unite" simply for his glorification I contend. We might have had no fascist reaction, no fog of cold war. And
a lot less dead in hot ones. Imagine. Much of the world now could have been an international association of interconnected and
peace-loving social democracies of highly educated, civilised and ecologically concerned citizens like Denmark and Sweden. Imagine
again. All lost because of one man's intellectual dishonesty and obstinacy.
"And I'm sure I'm missing a few others." Banking, for goodness sake. The idea is catching on, so get out of the way. For starters,
how about allowing the Post Office to do some local loan business to take away the awful people who do payday lending at very
high interest rates? Lobbyists for that lot should be thrown out.
@Bartolo Indian government just inaugurated India Post Payments bank. India Post is equivalent of USPS. Virtually every village
has a post office. Banking reaches everyone. Profits - minimal. But with limited options (savings, CDs, monthly income scheme,
pension distribution , small loans only), to ensure the private banking can continue with all the fancier products, bigger loans
etc.
Socialism isn't a failure in happier countries than ours: Sweden, Denmark, Finland, for instance. They have a mix of private
and public ownership of essential services like healthcare and education. And social services. For profit healthcare is an oxymoron.
Profit always wins over good healthcare and slicing and dicing services and procedures to squeeze every nickel and dime out of
them leads to very bad medicine.
The worst part of capitalism is extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands, further aggravated by foolish taxation policies.
Quality of education is uneven because of wide variation in local resources. Uniform federal funding of education would solve
this problem. Same applies to healthcare. Equal level of healthcare is possible only by a single payer system such as Medicare.
Public health which ranges from providing clean food, clean air, clean water, and vaccinations to garbage collection and dispositions
is a matter that is better publicly handled. Continuous reeducation of workers displaced by automation or outsourcing is another
matter that capitalism has ignored. Cremation or burial need to be publicly funded for those considered indigent when they were
alive.
The devil would be in the political mayhem that would take place as we decide what should be capitalist and what should be
socialist. Even if you base the decision on answering the question "What does every person need to live in this world?" you will
have massive disagreements. Insurance is inherently socialist - it requires everyone contribute so that the ones who need $ can
get it when the need it, on the theory that sooner or later we're all going to need it - but look at how insanely people (and
corporations) have resisted Medicare for all and even Obamacare. On the other hand, the liquor industry doesn't need to be socialist
- everybody doesn't need it and won't need it if they don't want it.
@Brookhaw Ever consider checking out how other countries do things? You can't skew the statistics forever by stacking everything
in the hands of the top 20-30% & still consider that on average, you're doing better than everybody else. The success of a few
outliers do not a functional country make & no, you don't need the oil revenue of Norway to make sure that the basic needs of
all citizens are met. It may not be easy & it's probably too late for the USA, as it takes generations of stability & hard work
to pull it off, but the most successful countries in the twenty-first century either did just that or are trying very hard to
do this well.
Socialism works if you have oil like in Norway where there's a trillion in surplus in profit. With 5 million population you
could have train service everywhere and elder care wherever you look. Wait they do have poverty. Never mind. Democratic Socialism,
neither Democratic or Socialist, could be done here. But when the deficit reaches a gazillion and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez appointee's
are running Ford and trying to select next years colors and mpg ratings why not cancel the government debt. It's not new it's
even in the - you guessed it, the Bible. Wait a second being a billionaire is so common. Who wants to be a trillionaire?
I hate capitalism. I want something better. Capitalism is greedy, completely materialistic and gives no regard for human values.
The earth and human civilization cannot survive unregulated capitalism, and capitalists don't care. Either we will create new
ways of living or catastrophic environmental collapse will bring human civilization as it exists today to an end.
This is where liberals lose me. Sure there are areas of the economy that should be run by the government. Health care definitively
is one of them (or at the very least a public option) But advocating socialism as opposed to social democracy is a NO NO. Last
country that when full blast socialism was Venezuela 20 years ago and look at the results. Many other disastrous examples abound,
Cuba any one?
Capitalism's strength is wealth creation in the hands of the few, who then use this wealth to further enhance their wealth
via control of governmental policy - all of which is contrary to the needs of the many. People who think a lot deeper than Krugman
question whether it makes sense to talk about democracy in a capitalist society - and there are academic studies that support
this. See: https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy
/
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Regarding socialism, the concept implies bottom-up control of policy which has only been achieved briefly, on very small scale
in societies and in history of which most are unaware. Dominant capitalist societies have attacked countries economically and
militarily that have tried a socialist model. Whether these would have eventually adopted a bottom-up power structure is unclear.
I agree with Paul Krugman, generally. But the issue respecting 1/3rd socialism and 2/3rds capitalism is that the socialist
sector would be the servant of the capitalist sector that would suck the life blood (tax revenues) needed to sustain a productive
health and education sector. One only need look at the military-industrial complex (MIC) to support my observation. The DoD spends
"Huge" taxpayer funds to support global military dominance. How much of that (socialist) military budget is contrived by capitalist
politician-lobbyists and over-spent with the blessing of the (socialist) military establishment that is recharacterized as "profit"
is anyone's guess. The socialist Defence Budget, and privatized NASA budget, fall outside the normal bounds of markets as the
buyers of these goods and services tend to be sovereign governments and sovereign corporations - TBTF. Eventually, retiring military
leaders that sanction budget directives that enrich capitalist corporations that make these military 'assets', end up post-retirement
as directors or officers of the MIC - i.e. Dick Chaney did well swinging socialist government business toward his business interests.
I accept Krugman's estimation that a minor portion of government-associated business can cut-out the middleman and become more
transparent and cost-effective producer of social goods and services - but only if there is an independent board and executive
team NOT expecting "fringe benefits" doing so.
Well, let's be honest, the "socialism is failure" paradigm is based on the corrupt and totalitarian regimes of the Soviets
and Eastern Europe. Yes, they failed. We know that. But Jesus, can we advertise the successes of Socialism for a damn second!!!!
C'mon, use the old brain. It is mixed economies that have yielded the best set of results in the modern era. There is no question
about that. Can we stop with the inane arguments! A certain amount of socialism is good! Let's debate the right balance. Fine.
But I'm sick of litigating the idea that some socialism is good.
One question that I think doesn't get enough attention is: Can capitalism exist without the need for constant growth? My intuition
is that it can, but most people regard the assumption of constant growth as a law of nature.
I am happy to see someone point this out. The mantra of growth is, ironically, the one thing agreed upon by all political persuasions,
but it's actually the least sustainable approach that could be imagined. I'd like to hear how capitalism might exist without it,
but even more I'd like to hear of any long-term workable system that's compatible with a steady state rather than unlimited growth.
@Chris Winter and John Steady-state economics has been seriously proposed. There is a non-profit dedicated to its theory and
implementation: the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy,
https://steadystate.org/discover/steady-state-economy-definition
/
Every human activity needs some sort of regulation to prevent exploitation of the vulnerable. Also, those portions of incomes
so high that they can't possibly be spent need to be transferred to those who will spend them. That keeps the money circulating
so that everyone benefits. This is what is needed, not arguing about public vs. private. Every activity can be private; that's
fine. But every activity also requires oversight to prevent harm to others. Unfortunately, people will tend to misbehave if they
can get away with it.
What is ignored in this innocent debate is the finicky nature of politics. The political swings from say, Kennedy era public
spending to Reagan era private enterprise along with a degraded view of government, can wreak havoc on those dependent on "government".
I think of my friend who benefited for years on a "minority owned business" provision to get contracts for his business. He believed
it was an entitlement. Then the Bush Administration cut out that provision and he ended up living out of his car. The lesson is
always: Don't get dependent on government.
The argument against socialism is totally disingenuous and purely tactical. "Socialism" has been purposefully cast as the "other"
in financial systems, exactly the same as foreigners have been cast as the "other." Socialism has always been a part of our democratic
(not capitalistic) system. Building infrastructure, public education, public transportation, public health, public law enforcement
are all socialism. Anti-monopoly laws are socialism. One can be reasonably certain that as soon as labels are used to evaluate
policy rather than content and benefits it is a "red herring" argument to distract from opportunism by the perpetrators.
@BB It could be argued that the United States was built through socialism. The Founding Fathers enshrined a national, government-run
mail delivery system in the Constitution that united the states. President James Monroe expanded the mission of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers from building coastal forts to surveying and improving inland waterways in 1824, helping to open the western
frontier to expansion. President Abraham Lincoln and Congress provided taxpayer-funded grants and government-backed bonding as
incentives for private companies to build transcontinental railroads and telegraph lines, uniting the continent. President Franklin
Roosevelt used taxpayer funding to subsidize the expansion of electricity into rural areas, bringing large portions of the country
into the 20th century. President Dwight Eisenhower proposed a taxpayer-funded interstate highway system that made America's a
truly national economy.
I suspect the only segment which can tolerate the inefficiency of humans is the government. Private firms will always seek
the most efficient means to provide goods and services, thus the push to automate and deploy AI. There is nothing wrong with this,
for example, the time saved using self checkout with portable scanners is wonderful, of course there are displaced workers.
@Awake Private firms always seek the most efficient way to make money. The mission is to make more money than last year. To
increase shareholder value. That is the extent of it.
@Awake You apparently have never worked for a large corporation. I have worked for three different corporations that had annual
budgeting procedures that were so inefficient it was often well into March before workers had anything to do. As a contract consultant
I spent eight months on contract doing nothing while management considered which of two alternatives plans to implement. I have
worked for a corporation where the internal charge for parking within the basement of a company owned building was far higher
than the rates at commercial parking garages within a few blocks, so the manager of the department with the most company cars
moved them saving his department money but decreasing the company's bottom line. I worked for a company where it became fashionable
for executives to send documents to one another via FedEx overnight instead of via interoffice mail. Sorting took place in Memphis
instead of the basement and the documents arrived two or three hours later or if the documents were ready early enough in the
day, twenty hours later.
@Dink Singer: As you correctly note, large bureaucracies have inefficiencies regardless of whether they're publicly owned or
privately owned. The Dilbert strip shows private enterprise, after all...
From a cost efficiency standpoint, more public control of some industries is easily justified. The part of the puzzle that
hasn't been solved is innovation. Without incentives brought about by capitalism, Google search, smart phones, YouTube, tablets
not to mention thousands of applications making your phone or tablet or PC so useful, would not arrive in 100 years let alone
one generation.
@Tom from The most patient investor in R&D is the federal government. For the obvious reason that more than 90% of R&D just
proves what does not work. The CIA helped fund some of the original research that ended up being Google, and an Italian college
professor (paid for by government money) made an important breakthrough as well. Read Mariano Mazzucato's The Entrepreneurial
State.
@Tom from Chris below goes no where near far enough. The entire technological platform on which Google, smart phones, YouTube
and the rest rely would have taken at least decades longer to develop without Government action and support. There quite literally
would not have been a "Silicon Valley" without the massive government investment in aerospace and defense in the 50's and 60's.
@Chris Herbert - Exactly right. The initial spadework -- fundamental research in materials, computing, biology that has led
to technological revolutions, was funded by the government usually without any vision whatsoever of the end application. It is
this that we are in great danger of getting away from, in doing applied research with an immediate end in mind (e.g. magic bullet
drugs for cancer).
A more realistic solution that wouldn't require the consent of our lawmakers would be to set up private companies that don't
operate soley on the profit margin, and instead work to provide a good or service to the public better than the current players;
treat their employees well and not pollute, cheat, steal, etc.; and provide a reasonable rate of return for investors (7% or so),
with any extra profits being split up and reinvested, given as bonuses to workers, investors, and consumers, etc. by a predetermined
formula. Western Europe gives lie to the argument that socialism doesn't work, but anybody who has been paying attention knows
lawmakers and their handlers will not abide by it, and sabotage it first chance they got. Instead we can set up a sort of private
socialist system, to compete in areas where the profit motive doesn't provide for the best outcomes, in areas like alternative
energy, internet cooperatives, drug discovery and manufacture, insurance cooperatives, etc. Graduate schools could be set up as
such allowing people to use their school money and the assets of the school to invent new products that could be then brought
to the public under such rules. The private sector would be free to compete, but the profit motive wouldn't be the only game in
town.
I have imagined a pair of such systems. One can't exist without the other. They are called Faction-Free Democracy and Democrato-Capitalism.
They are based on the fact that our supply of money is unlimited. I have been preaching this gospel for years, including comments
on this blog. I finally wrote a book about it called "Faction-Free Democracy." You can look it up. It provides government funding
for almost everything, and models the government on the democracy of ancient Athens. Many people call it "socialism" but in fact
it is a real democracy instead of the phony one we have now, which is, according to the Framers, a republic. Yes, it is possible
to have a government modeled on Athenian democracy. Computers don't you know. We could have a world-wide democracy if we wished.
It provides a Social Security Lifetime Supplement of $36,000 per year per citizen from birth to death. Don't be scared, check
it out. To paraphrase Keynes: "The new ideas expressed here are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies, not
in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which are now intertwined in every corner of our minds, and do not wish to
be disturbed."
If what Prof. Krugman were to happen in the US, it would just make them a bit more similar to European nations. Nothing revolutionary
in European views, but definitevely so for the American mindset. I think it would also make the US a stronger a more cohesive
nation. But expect private interests getting in the way of that by all means.
Private individuals and self interest are of course abstractions that do not stand by themselves in reality, apart of the common
sense ideology. They are mediated by social activities (via exchange -selling my capacity to work or buying what I need in the
market). I don't produce something to consume it myself, as in earlier economies of self subsistence. The computer I'm writing
on was made by others. Therefore I depend on others' products to live in society as I am not capable of producing my own means
of subsistence. The social wealth (all the products of use) produced by the collective worker (all of those who work for a wage)
is though appropriated by private individuals. But that is only a phenomenon that exists in a society where the means of production
are individually appropriated. This happens even in China despite its "socialist" or mixed "economy." So socialism is not just
the collective ownership of production means. It is the democratic control of the same, which does not happen under the regime
of capital accumulation (even in those 'state owned enterprises'). The baptism of fire of capital was the dispossession of lands
held in common by peasants in England starting in the xv century They were freed from their means of production and forced to
work for others. This operation has been repeated since then-even in China as recent as a decade ago. Those cities, roads, and
factories were made with the work of newly "freed" labor from the soil they used to till.
Krugman says socialism is an utopia or it does not work based on the experience of the former Soviet Union or currently in
China. Both are examples of centralized economies rather than socialism where the means of production (land, factories, technologies,
etc) are democratically controlled. Indeed, this centralization has favored the concentration of wealth produced in those two
areas of the world. The Russian oligarchs and the Alibabas come from somewhere, and the state has been there to help them along.
So let's keep apart the idea of socialism as a way of producing and appropriating this product from the form of government that
either fosters or suppresses it. There is not a clear example of the former. All the existing governments have so far mostly suppressed
socialism as a mode of production despite their name. The so called mixed economies were the result of the truce between capital
and labor after ww2. After that truce ended in the 1970s with low profitability capital has taken the offensive with both neoliberalism
and globalization, which ran out of steam in 2008. We are now facing the dystopia of a capital regime in trouble and unable to
deal with catastrophic climate change, the global poverty it has produced, the millions unemployed in the global south or precariously
living in the midst of concentrated wealth like in the US, and the demoralization produced by this social malaise Economists need
to deal with this dystopia and stop living in denial.
Professor Krugman are you not looking at the data? Total federal, state and local government spending was 37.9% of GDP in 2014
( https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
). The largest shares go to my mom and my kids (thanks taxpayers!). Government expenditure is not the same as GDP but are
you saying we should shrink government by 15% (5% of GDP) or grow it? If more money flows through DC (or, for this Californian,
Sacramento), will additional lobbying for regulation delivering rents to unions and corporations be worthwhile? Lack of antitrust
enforcement is doing more for the top .1% and to the bottom 10% than anything but maybe our silly tax code. Please think and write
more about that.
I think many sectors could benefit from a greater role for cooperatives: one-member-one-vote rather than one-share-one-vote.
Also, there could be mandatory inclusion of labor and public members on corporate boards. The current private sector model is
focused on growth, rather than service or maintenance, and typically has a very short time horizon. If our goal is sustainability
over the longer term, we need a better mix of governance and finance than at present. I completely agree with Dr. Krugman about
the need for better structures to meet public purposes such as health, education, utilities, and a basic social safety net including
housing.
The positive feedback loops of so-called network effects are concentrating economic and political power into black holes of
incredible wealth. When things get too out-of-balance, society, like an ecology, disintegrates. A mixed economy can help maintain
that balance. But, as things are going, it looks increasingly like many, many people are going to suffer first until some form
of balance, social, economic and ecological, is restored.
My suggested guideline is simple. If an organizations highest priority should be to be the public it should be socialized (tax
supported). If an organizations highest priority is profit its private. A healthy mixed economy is in our future. We just have
to make it happen.
It is amazing that Paul is a bit embarrassed to say the private sector isn't able to do everything well. It is sooo clear that
most of the big problems of this Country are a consequence of government being unable to do what has to be done. Of course, the
GOP doesn't want to do anything. But infrastructure, opioid addiction, health care more generally, education, research, the arts,
foreign policy, and politics in general are not where capitalism shines. In fact, simply making a profit very often isn't a good
motivator when it makes providing goods and services simply an expense instead of an objective. Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube,
Instagram are cases in point, where the money motive has corrupted large portions of these enterprises, driving out responsibility.
The issue we need to discuss first is corruption. What else can you call the fact that our representatives are for sale to
the highest bidder? We the public are clearly not capable of being represented in that system. Thus we are not. The issue of socialism
vs capitalism is totally misrepresented by most commentators and media. If we define socialism as taxpayer funded programs for
the public we've had the mixed economy Paul suggests for many years. Social security and medicare are the most referenced but
there are many more; public schools, the post office, libraries, museums, highways and roads, water, sewage, parks, local police
and government services..... But our unrepresentatives have shifted socialism on behalf of the public to socialism for the corporations,
subsidizing many industries like oil and agriculture while vilifying socialism on behalf of the public. The military and the banking
system are the most aggregis of the socialized, consuming over half our GDP. None of this will change until we deal with the corruption
of our representatives. Paul is stating the obvious, a mixed economy currently serves both the public and private sectors, but
is under relentless pressure to go private. Public institutions like schools and prisons have already been privatized. But when
we get our representatives back we have to decide what it makes sense to socialize and privatize. My suggested guideline is simple.
@Ed...if we get our representatives back. Absent another FDR and an overhaul of the democratic party that will embrace a New
Deal, the democrats will not dominate our governments and remain beholden to the same interests that prioritize short-term gain
over even their own long-term interests.
According to my cable-internet installer, a) Ethernet has defeated all other network protocols, b) Ma Bell was broken up over
long distance, a topic no one cares about anymore, c) no one can make money delivering generic IP packets, so d) the government
should re-create a national monopoly on fiber to homes and businesses, and e) bid out the installation and operation to local
contractors. This would allow one big govt-run system (furnace) and all the installers and network operators would still have
jobs. Happy Holidays.
Protecting our natural and cultural resources will unfortunately require a degree of protectionism. But this is a more sustainable
solution for both our country AND the rest of the world. If we can favor LOCAL COMMERCE through local/municipal, county and state
governments that preferentially support local/small-scale business, our carbon footprints and carbon sequestration figures, for
examples, would improve. Federal-/national-level governance and multinational capitalism are, in concert, destroying the planet.
Fortunately, our resource-richness allows us NOT to have to compete with the world's lowest bidders, in terms of exploitation
of workers and the environment.
@carl bumba, Yes we should try to think more locally, but moneyed interests think and act in concert globally, and a local
mindset where we ignore issues that don't affect us directly leaves us all at the mercy of the globalists.
In the 1920s, the British government initiated what was in effect an experiment comparing public and private design and manufacture
of an airship. This was before improvements in airplanes made airships obviously uncompetitive. The government designed and built
one airship, the R101, while a private corporation designed and built another, the R100. The government airship was a disaster,
literally. 48 people were killed when it crashed on its first attempt at a really long flight, in October 1930. Neville Shute
Norway, an engineer who had worked on the R100, later said he believed one of the big advantages of the private airship was that
it was under the scrutiny of suspicious government safety inspectors. The engineers building the government airship were not subjected
to the same hostile scrutiny by the government--after all they were the government--so they were able to get away with things
that should not have been permitted.
Neither pure 'capitalism' nor pure 'socialism' (or whatever may lie at the other end of the spectrum) have existed for centuries.
The unregulated seeking of profits, just as a centrally controlled economy, would be disastrous in any country and we do well
to understand the benefits of a mixed economy. The political economist Charles Lindblom "once described markets as being like
fingers: nimble and dexterous. Governments, with their capacity to exercise authority, are like thumbs: powerful but lacking subtlety
and flexibility. The invisible hand is all fingers. The visible hand is all thumbs. One wouldn't want to be all thumbs, of course,
but one wouldn't want to be all fingers, either. Thumbs provide countervailing power, constraint, and adjustment to get the best
out of those nimble fingers." (Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson; Making America Great Again: The Case for the Mixed Economy" - Foreign
Affairs - May/June 2016)
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-03-21/making-america-great-again
In comparative economics courses at US universities during the 1970s, large utilities experiencing decreasing long-run average
costs (like power generation/distribution; telephone companies; certain aspects of airliners; etc) and certain other production
where firms might have large numbers of employees, were hinted-at as prime candidates for being [quasi-]publicly sourced. What
the resulting system was called seemed less important than output and cost (Pareto, Nash, other) efficiencies. In some countries,
such industries flip back and forth between private and public production (or finance) over the decades, rendering those nations
characterized as more or less socialistic or capitalistic at the time, depending on how the highest profile firms are supported
by whatever prevailing administration (or ownership group) has power. This also can do wonders for public deficits and accumulated
debt in a very short period of time.
What about the broadcasting industry? Imagine watching television with programs not being broken up by commercials. Nowadays
is seems as if half of program time is taken up with commercials. Imagine having the quality of news, public affairs, and entertainment
approaching that of the BBC. A very intelligent and competent television producer reminded me many years ago, "Television is not
an information and entertainment medium, it's an advertising medium." We almost had a total national public broadcasting system
instead of the small sliver we have today . Congress narrowly supported the private system when the issue was decided in the 1920's.
Too bad it went that way.
@Bill So true. Then maybe we shouldn't reflexively trust corporate news, like NYT, to provide us with unbiased truth. For example,
many people here seem to adopt views about "fly-over country" without ever really knowing it, firsthand. Likewise, readers' opinions
here seem to be frequently formed by comparisons between REAL people (who are not Trump supporters) and DEPICTIONS of real people
(who are Trump supporters). This is problematic.
Paul's totally on target and the timing just might be perfect. Hopefully, he and others can build on this with actual examples
of other modern countries that have made this transformation successfully and the Democratic Party could finally UNITE around
a prudent vision for the voters .. . the two key words? Prudent and UNITE.
this brilliant and important piece misses a key phrase: the natural ecology. under pure capitalism the earth & the life support
systems it provides have no monetary value. therefore they exist merely to be exploited (and destroyed) for private profit. in
the long run such a system will doom us all. in fact, you could say in the short term it's already doing just that.
The primary arbiter of the effectiveness of free markets must be the presence of effective competition. If natural forces or
regulation do not insure effective competition in a market segment then the interests of the consumer must be enforced by regulation.
If regulation does not suceed public ownership is the most obvious alternative. The common belief that, if unregulated, markets
will function to the benefit of consumers and, on a larger scale, societies, is woefully misguided.
Retirement is a major area that could benefit from public ownership and control. Think of how much 401(k) gains are lost to
the private financial services industry. Think about how much lower administrative overhead Social Security has than private financial
service industry companies. Think what an expansion of the Social Security social insurance model could do to resolve the retirement
crisis.
As a teacher of economics I am wondering the same thing. Are we at a point where economies are so large and complicated, and
prosperity is so great (though not for realized for everyone), that some new economic system is called for. Call it "creative
destruction" turned towards the economic system itself.
Just by the mention of a ratio of 2/3:1/3, Mr. Krugman illuminates his belief that, no mater what perils capitalism may bring,
it is still twice as better than an economy that is heavily controlled by a government that is by and for the people. Eventually,
we may have a government capable of leading the economy, but for now, and without any evidence, commentators like Mr. Krugman,
cynically let us know that we should mostly just stay the course and give our money to the profit seekers. here's another way
to think about this: not only could all the people working in health care be public employees, but they and the people who need
medical care (all of us) could have our care subsidized by the creators of the drugs and diagnostic tools that save us. It is
important to remember that in health care there are statistics that show specific percentages of those subjected to certain drugs
or tests are actually harmed by those drugs and tests. It seems reasonable that those manufacturers should be in partnership with
the government for (and on the hook for) costs associated with their imperfect products. That is more of a real public interest
led economy where capitalism, because it harms people (as part of its nature), is humbled by the public good to subsidize their
mistakes and support the health of the citizenry.
@rick Let's see. You want the drug companies to underwrite the cost of patients who would receive their products. I think the
drug producers would love that scheme.
The socialist-capitalist, mixed economy, discussion in America is long overdue and, contrary to Prof. Krugman's guess that
it would be "probably irrelevant", quite relevant indeed. The Chinese economy is the leading capitalist-socialist economy: "Real
GDP Growth YoY data in China is updated quarterly, available from Mar 1992 to Sep 2018, with an average rate of 9.2 %."
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/real-gdp-growth
The World Bank illustrates the difference in GDP percentage growth since 1960 for the U.S. and China. Clearly, the Chinese
will over-take U.S. economy (GDP) in a matter of decades - likely when a millennial becomes President of the U.S. and China.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=CN-US
Despite the evidence, Americans still think that the U.S. will defeat the historic odds and remain the world's leading economy
and military power that it is today. In a world of increasing militarism, the future is uncertain. With unabated sustainable growth
of GHG emissions, millennials will need to get involved in politics sooner than any prior generation: their standard of living
is at real risk, they are part of the solution. The present U.S. Trump administration's denial of the science behind global warming
and climate change is the problem.
Some areas should be free market: Any area where there is clear competition -- e.g. automobiles. Some areas should be either
government owned, or tightly regulated: Utilities fall in this category, as it is very inefficient to have competition in electricity,
water, sewer, or wired communication. Cable TV would have fit in here 20 years ago, but there are enough other alternatives that
this is no longer the case. Some areas where the industry has an impact on the common good -- businesses that pollute come to
mind -- need regulations that govern that aspect. Any business that is "too big to fail" should get bailed out once: And then
broken up into at least 3 smaller companies. Other areas of regulation: Overlapping directorships within an industry. Banks should
not be in the insurance business. Nor in the stock selling business.
Krugman fails to mention the that most of the 2/3 capilaist portion of the ecomony he talks about isn't really capitalism,
it dominated bystate sanctioned monopolies. No one really believes in a ture capilaist economy, if they did they would be arguing
for the elimination of the largest distortions to a capitalist economy in the United States; tradmarks, patent, and limited liability
corporations. these three distort from a freemarket truely capitalist economy much more than wlefare, public education, regulated
healthcare. The government regulation inflicted by these three government mandates is much greater than Obama care and welfare
ever could be.
The question of "how discredited is socialism?" is odd. "Discredited" by whom? and in what context? Ronald Reagan crisscrossed
the country on behalf of the AMA, fear-mongering about ending freedom forever because the AMA hated the idea of socialized medicine:
Medicare. Today, many Americans seem not to know that original Medicare is a government-run program (socialized insurance, not
socialized medicine) -- less expensive to run, higher quality results, better at controlling costs -- far better than the wolf-in-sheep's
clothing Medicare Advantage programs that socialize risk, privatize profits, and make mountains of money for shareholders/execs.
Polls show Americans have become far more comfortable with govt-run healthcare -- hence its importance in Nov18 ... and likely
continued importance in 2020. And, last time I checked, Warren's drug manufacture plan included more than generics -- e.g., new
drugs with insufficient profit potential -- for rare diseases, or that cure, or that will be used rarely (like new antibiotics).
I'd prefer Prof. Krugman spend more time on economic explanations -- not worrying so much about political feasibility, prognosticating,
and inflammatory labels. Maybe then he'd discuss economic, public policy -- and moral -- benefits of the NY Health Act, "Improved
Medicare for all NYers," better than any current public or private insurance. If it becomes law in 2019, the feasibility of national
single-payer will no longer be in question...just the terms.
Capitalism begins to look a lot like state socialism when there is heavy concentration in the industry, for example, only one
commercial jet manufacturer or only one military fighter jet manufacturer or High tech controlled by Amazon, Google, Apple, FaceBook.
Capitalism works when there is competition, not monopoly. We are not as purely capitalistic as we like to think.
Free education for all advanced by Bernie Sanders is a first step that is needed. This is neither a socialism nor a capitalism.
We have Medicaid to take care of poor. It is just a matter of adequately funding it. Next, setup public works program where unemployed
can work for food stamps. Provide more public housing. This guarantees the basic necessities of food, shelter, education and health
care. Pay for it by reverting to taxation of 60s. I don't know whether it is socialism or capitalism, but it certainly is a basic
function of the government to take care of its own citizens.
We're at a point where a globalized administrative and distributive system can be successfully implemented. The only thing
in the way is capitalism, and private ownership of the existing first steps, twisted to the will of the super-elite. All we need
to do is turn that system into a global, public set of utilities, whose purpose is service, not profit. When the need for capital
accumulation grows to handle macro problems, it can be managed more efficiently this way, without the massive drain of corruption
that has heretofore hobbled all such efforts. The truck is going to be to make this system responsive and coherent, and that will
involve far greater integration of existing financial systems and processes into other service organizations, to make them useful
platforms for exchange management instead of the bubble casino fantasies built for the few they are today. This is an entirely
feasible proposition, and is only impossible because of the desperate, self-serving greed of those now owning it all. Remove them,
and their ownership, as a significant first step, and the rest becomes far more obvious soon thereafter. Or, continue living in
the clouds hoping a few useless tweaks will fix a broken global capitalist order. The stay will, however, be short, and the fall
is a long distance.
The fundamental problem with the idea of a mixed economy maybe be with the politicians who are advocating for it. Consider
at this moment, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and the Brexit mess. No one has contributed less to that problem than Corbyn and the Labour
Party. Or here at home, Bernie Sanders. Nice guy whose ideas harken back to Norman Thomas -- a wonderful man and perennial candidate
for POTUS who never won. The message about a mixed economy has and has lacked a spokesperson who can make its case and get people
to vote for them.
The problem as I see it, Professor Krugman is that there ARE people who believe that Gosplan and the Great Leap Forward, or
their equivalents, are the answer. While most are in College classrooms there are an increasing number of 20-something congresspersons
among them. They are too inexperienced and uninformed even to imagine the ways in which their cherished solutions are and have
been disasters. We are currently living through a national nightmare with thuggish real estate developers in charge of things,
but coming out the other side into someone's rosy vision of the Worker's Paradise is certainly not the answer.
I would like you to include a small sliver for co-operatives. I grew up in a farm community where a a co-op was a major source
of seed etc. Later I lived in a cooperative community where both our homes and local grocery store was a co-op. These are just
a few examples of how co operatives are used to supply basic and essential components of daily life without a profit margin.I
even get a check now and then when the grocery has a "profit."
I grew up in a military family that has fought every American war in history. Healthcare for us was provided by the public,
not private. The military provided public, not private education. Is the military socialist?? No. It's a combination of socialism
and capitalism, and it works.
Advances in medicine is an area that works amazing well through a public-private hybrid. In fact, biotech and big Pharma companies
even lobby for strong public sector funding for basic medical research. Why is that? Well, basic research has been the economic
driving force of this country where all the most important scientific advances have come from. However, it makes no sense for
the private sector to fund basic research (unless they are a charity) because it is unclear whether advances will quickly generate
a profit. However, without such advances, the private sector will dry up because they won't fund this type of research. See where
this is going. On the other hand, it is easy to justify public funding of basic research because 1) it trains our next generation
of cutting edge scientists and engineers; 2) nearly all discoveries that power the next "big thing" that transforms our economy
comes from basic research; 3) many basic discoveries are quickly converted into products and companies, again, driving the economy;
4) the most competitive countries have strong basic research. Even China, which is notorious for stealing technology and violating
IP, is investing heavily in basic research. This is just a model where even the private sector says the role of the public sector
is essential. If we can accept this fact, why can't we accept the fact that there are other areas that can't be done as well in
the private sector as it can in the public sector?
Professor, you're position is actually a restatement of "Rockefeller Republicanism." Named after Nelson Rockefeller (former
Vice President and NY Governor), Rocky's version of Republicanism believed that the government that governed least, governs best,
but with a big "however." Rockefeller knew that the markets we're imperfect, did not address every American's needs or desires,
and in some cases, failed miserably. He believed government had a role in the economy, but that did not necessarily translate
into large government organizations employing large numbers of public employees. Rocky pioneered (at the time) new, innovative
ways to address market failures like the quasi-government corporation. They worked by the government setting up a publicly owned
corporation, loaning the entity tax dollars "start-up" finds, and giving it a clear, simple mission. Take the NYS Thruway Authority.
Before there was an interesting highway system, there was the Thruway Authority commissioned with construction, operation and
management of limited access high-speed roads to connect the state's major urban areas. The initial taxpayer funded investment
was repaid via tolls paid by users. Expansion and maintenance was done by floating binds on public markets to be repaid by toll
revenues. When the bonds were paid off, tolls were mandated to drop (they did). This system worked without the "for profit" incentives
of the private sector that raises costs to users. Rocky Republicanism works.
"Socialization of investment" is necessary to keep investment flowing when the private sector is in full retreat due to the
paranoia du jour. Some public needs, such as health care and housing, are too important to be left to the individual calculations
of firms with short term views and short term bottom lines.
The key to success in any form of enterprise is motivating the leaders. Corporate CEOs respond to bonuses and options; lower
level managers respond to promotions. What are the corresponding lures in public-sector enterprises? Altruism doesn't quite cut
it. Maybe China has an answer?
@Subhash Garg You may establish government-owned companies that are legally normal companies but mainly or fully national owned.
In this way, you can ensure that CEO get bonuses if they do well etc., but the difference being that the top CEO salaries will
not be 50 MUSD, but a fraction of that. Personally, I think it is possible to find someone doing a good job as a CEO for a 1 MUSD
salary.
@Subhash Garg Largely the same, good salaries and bonuses for effective employees and managers. Don't see why cutting out absent
shareholders and incestuous "rock star" CEOs wouldn't help.
None of us lives our own lives by one pure ideology or rigid set of values. Why should we insist that one economic system will
serve our needs, now, tomorrow and forever? Of course, it depends on what our goals and values are. If we believe that acquiring
great wealth is the purpose of life and work, we will have a purely capitalist system where a few achieve that goal. If we believe
that living comfortably with a modicum of security in a stable, healthy society where everyone has enough, we will want that "mixed"
system. I prefer the latter.
Krugman describes some of continental Europe. I am not saying it's good or bad, but there is something out there to see how
that kind of mixed economy works.
Private, corporate interests should be put on notice: if you can't get the job done efficiently at a reasonable cost with on-going
respect for privacy rights and without endangering large numbers of the population, someone else is going to step in. That someone
else is all of us. Instead, things now are the other way around: the Republican hidden "master plan" is to privatize as much of
government functions as possible so that massive profits can flow from the billions spend. The other view, the other side, should
be a clear threat to private enterprise and intentionally so: do it well with respect for human decency or you will be replaced.
.... When life expectancies are declining, despite our tremendous resources and wealth, a degree of protectionism is in order.
Local, small-scale interaction, both public and private - need to be promoted and supported, over the long-term. Our 'sustainability'
depends on us protecting our cultural and natural resources.
Dr. Krugman misses the most important parameter for hierarchical social organization, which is the LEVEL of interaction. The
public/private debate here contrasts ONLY federal or national-level public institutions with private sector alternatives, both
at the national-level, e.g. power and telecommunication utilities, and local businesses and contractors. Sure, "central planning"
is widely discredited (and "decentralized" programs rely on market forces). But, historically, most of these organizations were
HIERARCHICAL networks; governments were not hubs of unstructured networks, but the top of pyramids of organizational levels. Governments
that plan and operate at the LOCAL level through local, public institutions and elections, in support of local commerce and businesses,
are not so easily discredited. The Washington swamp DOES need draining (for want of a biology-grounded metaphor). Municipal, county
and (to a lesser extent) state governments need to be EXPANDED. We are the only superpower, BY FAR. We don't need to have extensive
military commitments and alliances throughout the world anymore. These are NOT required for national security. This is an excuse;
they protect our domination of the global marketplace. We don't need more national and multinational corporations. BOTH agribusiness,
corporate franchises, etc. AND federal programs are terrible for life in middle America. When life expectancies...
The criteria for public regulation/ownership should be whether the goods or services that a business provides are deemed either
unethical to withhold from all citizens, or where the deprivation of those goods or services to some citizens adversely affects
all citizens. Clearly health care and education fall into that category. Nobody would make the argument that it is ethical to
deprive a child of education or health care because the parents were too poor to afford them. But uneducated or sick citizens
is not just an ethical failure. There is significant economic damage to everyone if large segments of the population are sick
and uneducated. Besides education and health care, other businesses with a compelling public interest come to mind. Mr. Krugman
mentioned utilities (no one wants people denied access to clean water or electric power). But a free and open internet is, or
should be, an area where the public has a compelling interest. Progressives should make the case why there is a compelling public
interest to take ownership of, or regulate, these industries. Then the political climate would be more favorable to, for example,
Medicare for all.
So can Prof. Krugman explain why public is more efficient only it isn't? If a private concern can sell something for $10 with
a $1 profit, then a public concern could sell it for $9. Seems elementary to me. Public companies can use the same techniques
as private ones to determine demand. The profit motive is societal. It's not elemental.
There is no sense in having a committee of communists decide how much milk should be on the grocery store shelf. Capitalism
is golden at responding to supply and demand. Yet, basics like roads, public safety, protection of our country (military), parks,
education, healthcare, and basic protections for the young, sick, disabled and elderly should be the collective responsibility
of all our citizens mainly through our local, state and federal governments. Quality of life should be the goal of humanity. It
is also high time for Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Man.
Dr. K. Your best column since your call over a decade ago about a possible looming meltdown with your prescient observation
re " they are selling each other condos down there in Florida". I would only disagree that it should be a greater figure for government
running business, not only does this create better paying jobs for a greater number of people hopefully with benefits, but so
much of the economy today allows private interests to capitalize on public investment not only resulting from public funded infrastructure
but R and D by government entities that private interests were allowed, or lobbied into, reaping the enormous profits from. Forty
years of runaway capitalism has produced little other than extreme inequality, the time is long overdue to correct these inequities,
another thing that needs to be addressed is vulture capitalism that has seen so many mergers and acquisitions turn into little
more than grand theft done by lawyers and bankers as they buy or gain control of one company after the other, fire millions in
the name of efficiency, load it up with debt to pay themselves huge sums and dump the carcass on shareholders, fully fifty percent
of these deals are bad for the companies not to mention the lives ruined, there is in my opinion a very good case these " venture
capitalists" should be in prison. China with its central planning has done a good job in this area as well, people get to greedy
they are executed, good riddance.
@Ted OK Ted, make the case: What law did they break? "there is in my opinion a very good case these " venture capitalists"
should be in prison." I'll leave this absurd statement for another day: "Forty years of runaway capitalism has produced little
other than extreme inequality"
A paradigm that says "Anything you could call socialist has been an utter failure". Interesting thinking. Medicare. Social
Security. Failures? Hmmnn. Wall Street has been an utter failure, destroying the economy in the Great Depression and nearly doing
so Great Recession--which was saved by public programs, policies, and very public bailouts. And Wall Street doesn't do a whole
lot of good (when the bad is included) on an ongoing basis. (I can hear the right-wingers howling on that one--innovation, start-ups,
and yada, yada). Privatization of prisons and schools has been a disaster. Privately--owned utilities are generally a ripoff.
The US health insurance system is a disaster. Several western European and Scandinavian countries have done quite well with public
ownership of the healthcare system, and ownership (and real) regulation of others. It won't happen here, though, as Greed runs
the show.
"...Private insurers don't..provide a service that couldn't be provided..by national health insurance. Private hospitals aren't
obviously either better or more efficient than [their] public [counterparts] "So you could imagine..health..currently in the private
sector [becoming] public, with most people at least as well off as they are now..." [op cit] -- Yes, by all means! -- For example?
Check out what's already in place: the VA healthcare [totally government run] System, where I'm enrolled, as a veteran... -- And
do you know what I think? 1. It words, "just fine." 2. It's cost efficient, as far as I can tell. 3. And I'm not complaining at
all. 4. In fact? I'm grateful! *** "...Also, I see zero chance of any of this happening in my working lifetime..." [op cit] --
Too bad! -- Because when you consider that most of our "advanced" Neighbors have long since instituted "Socialized Medicine,"
it begs the question: 1. "What do they know, that we don't?" 2. And, "Why haven't we done likewise?" *** It's become apparent,
that Americans have a penchant, for re-living the glory days of our past -- That is, debunking "progress," in favor of ways that
have always been familiar, and still seem to work -- Want to be relegated to history's, "Junk-heap?" It's oh, so easy! Just keep
on resisting -- 1. Better ideas. 2. Obvious examples, that work(!) 3. Sound advice, from those in the know. *** "Good luck," I
say, heading into the future-- And may God help the hard-headed among us !
Three "human rights": education, health care and housing. They should be guaranteed by the government, that is us, and taken
away from the unavoidable profiteering that is implicit with private sector enterprise. It would make for better economies and
a more just society.
@Davide How can housing be guaranteed? Say all 320 million people would want to live in the Bay Area. There is not enough space
to guarantee housing here. If not, then you have winners and losers no matter what type of housing distribution you adopt like
by birth, lottery or anything else.
Very helpful. Wouldn't it be a good idea for insurance of all types - auto, home, life - to be a government run, not for profit,
sector? What added value does a private insurance company give to anyone but the owners?
The whole socialism/capitalism thing is so muddied it would be hard to get a clear eyed view to compare. So called private
entities get subsidies of varying kinds and many state owned enterprises are run more like for profit ventures. Companies have
become so used to subsidy that they often get it without even asking for it. An example of the mess is my employer- a private,
faith based hospital system. The building that houses the facility is city owned and leased to the private company in a sweetheart
deal and it also receives a subsidy in the form of a city sales tax that is used for capital expenses. In addition, the operator
gets a tax exemption as a "faith based not for profit". It also gets discounts on some supplies and other subsidies as part of
various government programs. The recent Apple expansion in Austin, Texas was announced and it comes with subsidies. The Amazon
expansion involves massive subsidy to get jobs in Virginia and New York that according to this paper were the obvious places to
put them. Billionaire team owners routinely ask the city, county or state to fund new stadiums. While we are at it, there are
even more forms of subsidy. Comcast & AT&T have copper or fiber running in my back yard without my permission or compensation.
CenterPoint Energy has a natural gas line running underground in my yard and I get no compensation for it. Entergy has an underground
power line and - you guessed it- they do not pay me a cent for it.
America actually has a gigantic state sector: the military-industrial complex. We also have a huge, and bloated bureaucracy
- not so much at the federal level - but at the state and municipal level, where nothing of real importance is done but where
we still expect to pay middle-class salaries to these low-level civil servants on the backs of working-class taxpayers. Most of
what the federal government does should remain as government work. But the state and municipal governments should be substantially
reduced: very few jobs at that level are necessary or valuable to society, and there are far-too many mid-level managers in state
and municipal government that are sucking the taxpayer dry. They take all the money that the taxpayer would like to give to the
struggling, the young, and the disabled, and they use it to pay themselves handsome salaries. That certainly should end.
@Purity of Let me make the argument that water and sewer services operated by municipalities are the most important components
of good health followed rapidly by fire safety services offered by code enforcement officers and fire departments.
@Purity Let me remind you that the majority of municipal/state employees are educators from k-graduate school. Then of course
police, jailers and sanitation. The middle managers that you are complaining about are very small item in these budgets.
You and David Brooks should get together and write a collaborative column. David advocated for a similar mix in a recent column.
Great minds thinking alike?
I have often wondered ... what would "society" be if it followed the military model: everybody has a MOS (job), food, housing,
health care, retirement ...
A large share of the commenters here seem to not remember or be aware of some of the "features" of socialism that capitalism
effectively saved us from. A key rule to remember of government, no matter how benign - you don't get a choice. You don't choose
how much to contribute (taxes), you don't choose your service provider (no competition), and you have limited ability to effect
a change (and only if you are lucky enough to live in a socialist system that is also a democracy.). Take a look at the history
of the 70s US and Britain before the market reforms in both countries...
@random I drive to work on paved roads with functional traffic lights, although they could be better synchronized, and if I
saw an accident, I could call 911and get a trained operator who would dispatch the appropriate well trained and equipped first
responders. I choose to pay for this through my votes on City Council and County Board members. If you do not want to pay for
that, take the license plate off of your vehicle and stay off the roads.
@random Anyone remember the hated HMOs from the 90's? Today, you want an MRI you get it in the morning, whether you need it
or not. Put all medical care under the g'ment, care will be rationed by time rather than dollars- you may get that MRI or joint
replacement in 4 months by the Dr. of a bureaucrat's choice. It's going to be really difficult to unwind the choice of today to
that system.
Most of your points are not really true; but especially so if you consider free migration. One of the side-effects of widespread
xenophobia is to gerrymander the world by blocking that most basic form of voting; voting with your feet.
Firemen are honored, and esteemed, by both sides of the political fence. But fire departments are socialist government in the
sense that they are there, paid by all for the good of all, because if one house burns, the fire may spread. It used to be, however,
that in the USA in the 19th century, firemen were paid by private insurance companies, and there were competing fire companies
who would not put out your fire if you had not signed with them. We are glad now that that period is over. But the situation with
health care today is identical. When will we Americans learn that the health of each of us impacts the whole. You have to put
out a house on fire even if the residents have not paid insurance, because the fire can spread (infection) and damage the whole
town (body).
So, we're looking for some kind of equilibrium with public and private control of the means of production. I think that is
going on. And, it changes with each new generation, the goal posts move. The pendulum swings between the public and private. It
is burdened by history. For me, I am not an economist I'm a LiArt guy, I am a cog in this system, and, it took me a while to accept
that. But, having accepted that, I set my own economic goals and have achieved much of it. Healthcare was a no-brainer, I paid
for and have had health insurance for myself and family all my working life. I am retired now, am comfortable, still working to
leave something of a legacy for my children. This is something to think about. What is the right mix? Everything economic requires
conscious effort. Capitalism and democracy work together and we are constantly looking for that equilibrium. I don't think it
can be reduced to a nice, neat formula. It is dynamic and everything can be fungible. Of course, there may come a time when I
won't care one whit about anything. That is when my long-term disability insurance should kick in, but, who knows, really, and
I probably will not care.
This should be a blinding statement of the obvious with historical data to demonstrate the statement's truth. Decades of Republican
propaganda exploiting the quasi-intellectual concepts of the libertarian laissez faire economics has created a mantra for "conservatives"
that is in serious need of challenge. Good on Paul Krugman for confronting Republican economic theory.
@Taxidermitist, probably because "free" is a chimera. Schools need to be maintained and upgrades. Teachers need to be paid
(a lot more then at present) and textbooks need to be printed. The cost of all these things comes from the taxes that most citizens
regularly vote against. It behooves us as a nation to provide the highest quality education at the lowest possible cost – hence
the public option is the most pragmatic, as well as the most practical. I think most people would support a public service requirement
for graduates to spend x number of years in national service (not necessarily military) in exchange for their "free" education.
"Free" is a loaded word, as well as being misleading.
Thank you Paul. Progressives must make the case that in order for Market Capitalism to be sustainable; Public sharing of Health
Care, Education, Retirement Security, and National Park Lands with Environmental Protections must be part of our Common Goods
we all need to exist. Progressives do not need to demonize Big Multinational Business. Just appeal to their own self interest
by stating that if we share the risks of Health, Ed, and Retirement, Markets will be free of areas that they inherently fail at,
and people will have more resources and time for pursuit of Free Enterprize.
@Michael W. Espy. Business pays for most non research healthcare today. Commercial insurance pays a premium so Medicare can
pay direct costs only and Medicaid pays a fraction of actual costs.
It seems to me that focusing on public or private ownership, exclusively, misses the boat. Enterprise size is the issue. Could
anything be more wasteful than the Pentagon or more socially destructive than Amazon? Small and medium sized enterprises (schools,
towns, water departments, farms, factories, retail, etc) may be less efficient than large ones in some measures, but they may
also avoid the externalities of big ones, so should be better for society on balance -- including geographic equity (i.e., they
can make it outside of the coasts). But bigness can only be controlled through regulation, which has almost no friends and is
more vilified than socialism.
The reason for privatization has always been the obscene profits available to those few at the top, not "efficiency". Even
with a 2/3 private, 1/3 public economy, the income distribution would remain vertiginously skewed on the private side, with some
making billions and other pennies. The money will be used, as ever, to buy power, posing a continuous threat to the system. Let's
get money out of politics first and then see what new economic equilibrium we settle in to.
I have always felt that we should let the government do what it does best and let the private sector do what it does best.
Mr. Krugman makes a valid case for the "mixed economy," but right-wing conservatives, who benefit the most from private ownership
that is subsidized with huge tax benefits, will howl at the thought. It's Socialism! That term has become a pejorative for anything
that smacks of the government taking over what the private sector has been doing, even when done poorly -- think providing adequate
medical care for all Americans. Just look what's happened with so-called Obamacare. A sitting President had the courage to tackle
this problem and he lost both houses of Congress. Did the Republicans who control Congress try to fix the broken system? No, they
made political hay by voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times.
The utilities sector too. It makes no sense to privatize things for which there can be no meaningful competition. What we actually
find is that services and price controls are strictly controlled by public utility commissions. So what was the point of it being
a private enterprise?
Totally agree; the profit motive does not bode well for public benefit. Two points: 1) My husband was on dialysis for ten months,
and had a kidney transplant in January 2009, paid for by the government. 2) Does anyone believe that the private sector will send
a letter across the country, indeed halfway around the world (think Guam) for 55 cents? We must not let the Postal Service be
privatized! It pays for itself, and cannot be duplicated by the private sector.
We're in a mixed economy, already. Although not to the level that Krugman proposes. It's been a series of back and forth, with
the Republicans curtailing taxpayer public social investments -- only if it does not serve their purposes (or there could be potential
sizable donations as a result). It's a matter of keeping this in perspective: That is already the US economy -- we just have to
make sure it is working for the public good instead of tax dollars and national heritages (public lands and resources) supporting
private interests. Do more of this where it makes sense? Absolutely. Not in Krugman's working lifetime? Maybe not -- there's new
blood with the desire to do the monumental task of mobilizing America and the world with a New Green Deal. That's just scratching
the surface. And, they are definitely not afraid of the word socialism. Mixed economy it is and will be -- in spite of Trump and
the Republican party.
As a European I live under a system where [still] many public services are without a doubt public: healthcare, infrastructure,
education. Even utilities & public transport, although privatized, are mainly private monopolies, coming forth out of public services.
For me it's simple: you don't make a profit off the back of the sick, the poor and the children. And infrastructure is a necessary
evil that needs to be public, too. I don't mind private clinics, as long as public service offers the basics needed to keep people
healthy. Extra care, softer pillows, luxury rooms and caviar for breakfast; if you want it, pay for it. Why not? The same for
utilities (which should be public & non-profit, to my opinion) and education. If making a profit on the service hurts the economy
(which is the case with education, health care, utilities and infrastructure), then it should be a non-profit, public service.
And it doesn't hurt to have private companies doing the bidding for the subcontracts/services; as long as it's an open and transparent
process, not a corruption. Simply put: if it is essential to our well-being, for our basic needs, make it public (or subsidize
the rents, f.i.). Leaves us with the question: what is essential? - Water, electricity (gas for heating?), healthcare, education,
infrastructure, public transport. What else? - Housing? For sure. Public housing for the poorest is essential. - Internet/TV/Radio/Telephone?
Not sure. What do I miss?
@Timo van Esch, in this excellent and very complete list, you missed the courts, which in the US are a mechanism for extracting
revenue from those who can least afford it. Our prisons are overflowing with people unable to pay fines, who are being charged
rent for their incarceration. "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed," if an oft quoted part of people being
informed of their rights. What is not stated is that they will be presented with a bill for services - even from the Public Defender's
office, and charged interest and penalties for failure to pay – even additional imprisonment in a vicious circle.
@michaeltide Very interesting, I had no idea a bill followed. I guess it's safe to say that public legal service rates are
lower than than market rates! (By the way, Michael, to answer your earlier question: Trump supporters voted for Trump to be president,
to solve our current problems, NOT to be our friend, neighbor, role model or have Camelot-charm/sex appeal.)
"Now, this wouldn't satisfy people who hate capitalism." No, Paul, it wouldn't -- as someone who hates capitalism myself, I
can corroborate your claim. But what you have set forth here is a real start, too. People who hate capitalism tend to be people
who hate the predatory, rent-seeking, deregulated and rigged capitalism practiced now, the kind that has slowly turned our country,
as the systemic level, into an anti-democratic oligo-pluto-kakistocracy with the rhetorical trappings of a legitimate republic.
Those who are arguing that greed is what demolishes both socialism and capitalism miss the salient point that capitalism (as we
know it) is exhausting itself in part because it has nearly fulfilled its own logic: the more we automate, the less money we spend
on salaried employees; the fewer salaried employees, the smaller the workforce, the bigger the bottom line, but the bigger the
underclass of unemployed and potentially unemployable poor. Marx spoke often about the "means of production"; the transformation
and partial, if not total, automation of these means seem to me inevitable, and profoundly dangerous for all but a tiny elite.
There are those of us who would back any step in the right direction. The best analogy, perhaps, is in American healthcare policy.
Those of us who lean left of Sanders believe, almost unanimously, that a single-payer system is the only one befitting a civilized
nation. But the ACA was a start, and improvement. If you're game, I'm game.
Mr. Krugman is almost as savvy re politics as he is with economics - I am sincere ... and it's high praise, of course. So,
to bandy about words like socialism and even communism - words which almost everyone agrees are "fighting words" is either horridly
insensitive or a rare lapse in judgment on his part If there WERE op-eds like is "behind what used to be called the Iron Curtain,"
they might score almost as many debating points about the failure of capitalism as Mr. Krugman strews as he basically finds nice
things to say about what he calls socialism. I disagree very strongly with him that education is an area where the "public model"
can take a bow. The Lincolnesque photo of him indicates that he probably was schooled (publicly ?) long enough ago so that oh-how-far-it's-fallen
may not be apparent to him. As a guess, he has grand children who either live in a 1% type community or attend private school.
(Not snide - just trying to fathom how he could be SO out-of-touch.) In fact, that's what's so awful about the "public model"
- people not accountable to anyone really, holding jobs for life. It surely had a lot to do with the collapse of countries like
East Germany ... and bodes ill if, say, utilities are de-privatized. OTOH, I think he is uncharacteristically tepid when it comes
to our health care vs. most other (mostly) comfortable societies. Our bang-for-the-bucks is appalling. Obamacare's lack of a "public
option" cemented a miserable status quo for anyone not rich.
we have a mixed economy now: it's good for the rich and bad for everyone else. and with President Trump's goverment shutdown,
we're on the way to realizing a long-held Republican goal: a return to slavery, starting with government employees working for
nothing right before Christmas.
Many who love the market system are either autocrats and boards of autocrats running their companies or the politicians bought
and paid for by such. The market system definitely has its place but I am not sure that it has the ability and the patience to
develop what truly reorients mankind's progression. The Greeks instauration to democracy, the Renaissance, the Moon program, the
Genome project, were not created by the market, nor was the big data revolution and A.I. which were driven by the emergence of
neural networks, birthed in universities. Neither will the market bring about the proper approach to climate change and population
control. Now, once a direction with potential is determined then the market knows how to implement it. Socialism and Market economy
are words mostly used by people in tribal camps who, for the most part, are useless in the long run. I do not think that rats
like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, or Carl Icahn and others (such as Trump) contribute anything to society. They are worse
than Clorox!
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially if the mind in question is an economist. But we are here to bury capitalism
not to praise it dear Brutus [sic]. We already have a mixed economy. Communism for bankers and the ultra-rich and capitalism for
the once great middle-class, and fascism for the poor. Do try to think a bit beyond our current predicament even if those stock
buy-back strategies didn't workout so well.
1)I really dislike how the meaning of the term "socialism" has been undermined by its repeated use as a pejorative. Any public-sector
activity the right doesn't like is labelled "socialist." Now we're stuck trying to explain what it actually is to a bunch of people
who still support the gold standard. Gah. 2)The idea of the government taking back its patents on generic drugs makes perfect
sense. I'd rather have the federal government manufacturing insulin than watch more price fixing by a cartel of private companies,
which is what we have now.
With rising profits, and declining services, there's a lot of room for Government to be competitive with the public sector.
If you scratch the surface of a large company, you will find the same inefficiency as in government, only higher salaries and
profit (some of which is guaranteed through 'government work'. Lots of good 'in-house' work has been provided by the state and
federal government in engineering, research, ship repair and consumer protection. I worked for Alaska Railroad when it was owned
by Department of Transportation, and it was pretty good. Probably a money-loser, but people liked that you could pull the string
and get off where you liked, or stop the train and get on in the bush. You had to sign a paper saying you'd take to the hills
and fight if the Russians attacked. There's nothing like that at Facebook.
The entire 20th century was a search for the balance between public and private economy in democratic societies throughout
the world. Japan, South Korea, Uruguay, Chile, Germany, Canada, Sweden -- any number of nations demonstrate different ways to
balance it all. Their experimentation is there recorded and available for anyone to study. Do you think anyone in the US government
does? While this column is welcome, America seems doomed to debate the knowledge of the middle of the last century over again,
as if it had never happened -- in economics as in all things -- why? Because History and other knowledge has been replaced by
Ideology through Paid Commercial Media, both legacy and digital. This helped accomplish the great dumbing down initiated by the
Reagan administration to cut pell grants and essentially as much education funding as possible. Replacing scholarships into a
monetized banking scam. Aided and abetted by Democrats who controlled the house and had no interest in educating the voters that
Republican Ideology wasn't based on truth. A whole generation of college professors didn't happened, or rather the more intelligent
candidates were systematically replaced by the more wealthy candidates. This process has brought reduced elite education to nothing
more than a fetishized luxury good -- credentials replacing achievement as a career goal. The triumph of nepotism then follows
logically. The telegenic filled in for leadership for both parties.
What we have to overcome, is this childish idea, capitalism would be a sort of natural law that will provide for us all! Eventually!
i.e. something like god's little brother. The problem is not so much that free markets don't work, but that some markets are not,
and will never be free e.g. health (people will pay anything for a treatment if it means life or death, and nothing if they don't
need that treatment; lower prices will not increase demand); food (people have to eat; their demand can not drop to zero); ditto
housing; and especially labour (people have to work to provide for themselves; the so called Manchester capitalism throve exactely
on that) N.B.: A free market is a market in which supply and demand float freely, coupled by the price, not a market without any
regulations! That would be a lawless market i.e. a gold digger town economy. Such markets tend not to remain free for long. Furthermore,
please remember: A free market produces an equilibrium, and that's it! The point of equilibrium might still be unacceptable for
moral reasons e.g such an equilibrium could very well be high unemployment, or a food shortage. And about privatisation: Even
microeconomic science tells us that things will become more efficient if there is competition, not just because the players are
private. A private monopolist is as bad, or even worse than a public one.
Jeff Bezos collects almost 9 million dollars an hour at his job while I make 15 dollars an hour at mine. I spend every dollar
I make to survive, which makes my economic worth zero. Bezos collects his dollars into the billions and has a gigantic economic
worth. Because I live my life without enough money it's easy for me to forget that we are not economic things and that our value
and worth cannot be summed by economic terms. I don't have any value or worth, I am not a commodity, I am not a variable or a
statistic. I am not a cog in a wheel or a rat in a race. None of us are, but our culture conditions us to accept ourselves as
consumers and nothing else. When we worry about our worth and value as people we are using incompatible terms. Bezos is not worth
more than me or anyone else. He is not more valuable than anyone else. The only difference between Bezos and myself is that his
ability to consume is off the charts and mine is minimal. If we really are economic entities then I am an earthbound worm eating
dirt while Bezos exists as a tremendous black hole consuming matter, light, and everything else. I don't want to be a black hole.
I want to create, like the burning stars, shedding heat and light as I consume what I am. It's a choice to be a black hole or
a star. Create more, consume less.
The United States of America of today has effectively two systems: capitalism - the main one -, and socialism, in the Pentagon
(which is between one tenth and one quarter of the American economy, depending on how you want to count it). The Pentagon is effectively
socialist because, given the sui generis nature of the defense sector and the advanced level of the American capitalism, it runs,
internally, a perfectly planned economy. How is it done? It receives unconditional and unlimited amounts of money-capital directly
from the USG. Yes, the "outside world" is still capitalist, and many Pentagon contracts end up fueling the capitalist part of
the country - and that's why the capitalist part of the USA is still the hegemonic one - but, in its inner logic, it is socialist.
Why the USA accepts a big chunk of its economy to be socialist? Because the use value of national security requires absolute efficiency
in terms of logistic readiness and lethal efficacy: you can't not bomb country X simply because the quantity of missiles Y would
not be on a scale sufficient large enough to meet the necessary profit rates of supplier Z. No, if you need 1 missile Y at exact
time W to achieve a military victory against country X, you bet your life the Pentagon will have it -- regardless if it is "cost
effective" from the capitalist point of view. The only other time the USA was as socialist was during FDR: this reveals the American
pragmatism towards the overall survival of capitalism.
What the late Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan used by 11,000 companies, called The Second Income
Plan, deserves consideration. See SECOND INCOMES at aesopinstitute.org for a description. This is a Third Way that captures the
advantages of capitalism while overcoming many of the disadvantages.
I believe that a combination of Capitalism & Socialism can work & is already working ,like the VA, which I use & i'm completely
satisfied. Social security doesn't pay all my bills, but without it I would depend on the one day old Doughnut Company to eat.
Having said all of the above, what made America Great is incentive, motivation & creativity that is the result of Capitalism.
Socialism must be used in Education, rather then the insurance loan that put Graduates in debt for years. It should not be an
open door to higher education, but given to only those that are qualified. Universal Health care has to be Socialized, & given
only to the needy. Neither Socialism or Capitalism is the answer when used without the other, together it's not perfect but better
than alone.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
Our proposals are based on the creation of a Budget for democratization which would be
debated and voted by a sovereign European Assembly. This will at last enable Europe to equip
itself with a public institution which is both capable of dealing with crises in Europe
immediately and of producing a set of fundamental public and social goods and services in the
framework of a lasting and solidarity-based economy. In this way, the promise made as far back
as the Treaty of Rome of 'improving living and working conditions' will finally become
meaningful.
This Budget, if the European Assembly so desires, will be financed by four major European
taxes, the tangible markers of this European solidarity. These will apply to the profits of
major firms, the top incomes (over 200,000 Euros per annum), the highest wealth owners (over 1
million Euros) and the carbon emissions (with a minimum price of 30 Euros per tonne). If it is
fixed at 4% of GDP, as we propose, this budget could finance research, training and the
European universities, an ambitious investment programme to transform our model of economic
growth, the financing of the reception and integration of migrants and the support of those
involved in operating the transformation. It could also give some budgetary leeway to member
States to reduce the regressive taxation which weighs on salaries or consumption.
The issue here is not one of creating a 'Transfer payments Europe' which would endeavour to
take money from the 'virtuous' countries to give it to those who are less so. The project for a
Treaty of Democratization ( www.tdem.eu )
states this explicitly by limiting the gap between expenditure deducted and income paid by a
country to a threshold of 0.1% of its GDP. This threshold can be raised in case there is a
consensus to do so, but the real issue is elsewhere: it is primarily a question of reducing the
inequality within the different countries and of investing in the future of
all Europeans, beginning of course with the youngest amongst them, with no
single country having preference. This computation does exclude spending that benefit
equally to all countries, such as policies to curb global warming. Because it will finance
European public goods benefiting all countries, the Budget for democratization will de facto
also foster convergence between countries.
Because we must act quickly but we must also get Europe out of the present technocratic
impasse, we propose the creation of a European Assembly. This will enable these new European
taxes to be debated and voted as also the budget for democratization. This European Assembly
can be created without changing the existing European treaties.
This European Assembly would of course have to communicate with the present decision-making
institutions (in particular the Eurogroup in which the Ministers for Finance in the Euro zone
meet informally every month). But, in cases of disagreement, the Assembly would have the
final word. If not, its capacity to be a locus for a new transnational, political
space where parties, social movements and NGOs would finally be able to express
themselves, would be compromised. Equally its actual effectiveness, since the issue is one of
finally extricating Europe from the eternal inertia of inter-governmental negotiations, would
be at stake. We should bear in mind that the rule of fiscal unanimity in force in the European
Union has for years blocked the adoption of any European tax and sustains the eternal evasion
into fiscal dumping by the rich and most mobile, a practice which continues to this day despite
all the speeches. This will go on if other decision-making rules are not set up.
The hypothesis is that due to emergence of mutual funds and other financial instruments the capitalist class became more
homogeneous in its interests and more united with financial oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... In such a situation there were significant divisions within the capitalist class that attenuated its overall political clout. Industries divided according to policy preferences, and political parties, which were essentially interest group coalitions, attracted different segments of this class. (In the US the Republicans were just as much an interest group coalition as the Democrats, just different interests like small retail business, domestic mining, nonunion manufacturing, etc.) Public policy in this dispensation, whatever its ostensible justification, reflected sectoral influence. ..."
"... Since the early 1970s capital ownership has become substantially more fungible in every respect. Equity funds of various sorts established themselves as institutional players, allowing individual capitalists to diversify via investment in these funds. Regulatory restrictions on capital movements were dismantled or bypassed. New information technology dramatically reduced (but not eliminated!) the fog of all financial markets. ..."
"... The other side of the coin was political influence over ideas. Intellectuals who advanced the positions we now call neoliberal were rewarded with research funding, jobs and influence over government policy. ..."
"... Lending conditionality reproduced in developing countries the same incentives that had shifted the intellectual environment in the core capitalist world. ..."
"... This hypothesis -- and it's important to be clear that's what it is -- also gives us an explanation for why the 2008 crisis, while it did provoke a lot of reconsideration by intellectuals -- did not result in meaningful institutional or policy change: the underlying political economic factors were unaltered . And it implies that further intellectual work, necessary as it is, will not be enough to extricate us from the shackles of neoliberal political constraints. For that we need to contest the power that undergirds them. ..."
"... The alliance (in the US, the focus of my comments) of the monied interests, providing the financial resources and seeking the repeal of the social and fiscal policies of the New Deal, and the heavily Southern-based evangelical/religious right, providing the voting bloc and seeking to turn back the progress of minorities and women in achieving more equal social and political rights -- created the powerful political base from which the revisionist onslaught was mounted. Reagan then provided the smiling face to sell the proposition that "government isn't the solution to your problems; government IS the problem" that effectively neutered the one institution capable of regulating the monied interests. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a dialectic between them more than it has been a fixed doctrine. The remarkable power and resistance to outside critique is attributable to the insular nature of that dialectic. ..."
"... Where we are -- neoliberalism triumphant albeit spent ..."
A standard narrative is that the Keynesian postwar order cracked up over the crisis of inflation during the mid-1970s. A conservative
alternative that trusted markets more and government less was vindicated by events and established its intellectual dominance. After
a lag of a few years, policy followed along. One can critique this on matters of detail: economic growth remained stronger during
the 70s than it would be thereafter, anti-Keynesians did not have a superior understanding of economic developments, and no intellectual
revolution was complete within the space of just a few years. But the deeper problem, it seems to me, is that this attributes vastly
exaggerated agency to coteries of intellectuals. Do we really think that the elections of Reagan and Thatcher, for instance, were
attributable to a shift in grad school syllabi in economics and related fields?
I propose an alternative hypothesis. From the end of WWII to the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, a large portion
of capital was illiquid, its value tied to its existing use. The rich sought to diversify their portfolios, of course, but there
were limits. Stock market transactions were beclouded by large information costs, and share ownership tended to be more stable and
concentrated. Fortunes were rooted in specific firms and industries. In such a situation there were significant divisions within
the capitalist class that attenuated its overall political clout. Industries divided according to policy preferences, and political
parties, which were essentially interest group coalitions, attracted different segments of this class. (In the US the Republicans
were just as much an interest group coalition as the Democrats, just different interests like small retail business, domestic mining,
nonunion manufacturing, etc.) Public policy in this dispensation, whatever its ostensible justification, reflected sectoral influence.
Since the early 1970s capital ownership has become substantially more fungible in every respect. Equity funds of various sorts
established themselves as institutional players, allowing individual capitalists to diversify via investment in these funds. Regulatory
restrictions on capital movements were dismantled or bypassed. New information technology dramatically reduced (but not eliminated!)
the fog of all financial markets. And firms themselves became separable bundles of assets as new technology and business methods
allowed for more integrated production across ownership lines. The combined result is a capitalist class with more uniform interests
-- an interest in a higher profit share of income and greater freedom for capital in every respect.
The crisis in real returns to
capital during the 1970s, the true economic instigator, galvanized this reorganization of the political economy. (In the US the S&P
peaked in 1972 and then lost almost half its inflation-adjusted value by the end of the decade. This is not an artifact of business
cycle timing.)
Of course, all understanding of the world is mediated by the way we think about it. The wealthy didn't say to themselves, "Gee,
my assets are taking a hit, so the government needs to change course." They turned to dissident, conservative thinkers who explained
the "failures" of the 70s as the result of too little concern for the engine of growth, which (of course) was understood to be private
investment. Market-friendly policy would, it was said, reinvigorate investment and spur economic growth. Keynesianism was seen as
having failed because it took investors for granted, taxing and regulating them and competing with them for finance; politicians
needed to show respect. It's understandable why capitalists would interpret their problems in this way.
The other side of the coin was political influence over ideas. Intellectuals who advanced the positions we now call neoliberal
were rewarded with research funding, jobs and influence over government policy. When the World Bank and the IMF were remade in the
wake of the 1982 debt crisis, this influence was extended internationally. Lending conditionality reproduced in developing countries
the same incentives that had shifted the intellectual environment in the core capitalist world.
This hypothesis -- and it's important to be clear that's what it is -- also gives us an explanation for why the 2008 crisis,
while it did provoke a lot of reconsideration by intellectuals -- did not result in meaningful institutional or policy change:
the underlying political economic
factors were unaltered . And it implies that further intellectual work, necessary as it is, will not be enough to extricate us
from the shackles of neoliberal political constraints. For that we need to contest the power that undergirds them.
The alliance (in the US, the focus of my comments) of the monied interests, providing the financial resources and seeking
the repeal of the social and fiscal policies of the New Deal, and the heavily Southern-based evangelical/religious right, providing
the voting bloc and seeking to turn back the progress of minorities and women in achieving more equal social and political rights
-- created the powerful political base from which the revisionist onslaught was mounted. Reagan then provided the smiling face
to sell the proposition that "government isn't the solution to your problems; government IS the problem" that effectively neutered
the one institution capable of regulating the monied interests.
An interesting discussion of the roots, differences and similarities between neoliberalism and ordoliberalism. And believe it
or not, the many comments raise some interesting points. Only one real gaslighting comment.
One thing Barkley said should be repeated: neoliberalism has opposing poles quite a distance apart. Neoliberalism is a dialectic
between them more than it has been a fixed doctrine. The remarkable power and resistance to outside critique is attributable to
the insular nature of that dialectic. The neoliberal right has chosen its interlocutors, the centrist "left" very well, which
is an important reason that the non-neoliberal real Left is emerging now from the sojurn in the politics of cultural critique
where it went in the 1960's with no knowledge or interest in economics.
It does not take a genius to see that human civilization and the natural ecology can only survive if people somehow manage
to produce a rational architecture for political economy deliberately and on an unprecedented scale and level of sophistication.
Where we are -- neoliberalism triumphant albeit spent and a Left at peak consciousness -- is exactly the wrong place to be in
the political cycle.
Right now neo-fascism is the most probably scenario of the social system after the decline of
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... But, in Europe, there has always been a deep distrust of the Anglo-American celebration of "possessive individualism" and its repudiation of community and society. Remember Margaret Thatcher's contempt for the idea of "society"? So, it is unsurprising that neoliberalism's advocates dismiss recent European analyses of local, regional and global economies as the nostalgia of "old Europe", even as neoliberalism's failures stack up unrelentingly. ..."
"... The consequences of these failures are largely unseen or avoided by policymakers in the US and their camp followers in the UK and Australia. They are in denial of the fact that not only has neoliberalism failed to meet its claimed goals, but it has worked devastatingly to undermine the very foundations of late-modern capitalism. The result is that the whole shambolic structure is tottering on the edge of an economic abyss. ..."
"... If Streeck is correct, then we need to anticipate what a post-capitalist world may look like. He thinks it will be terrible. He fears the emergence of a neocorporatist state and close crony-like collaboration between big capital, union leaders, government and the military as the consequence of the next major global financial crisis ..."
"... Jobs will disappear, Streeck believes. Capital will be intensely concentrated in very few hands. The privileged rich will retreat into security enclaves dripping with every luxury imaginable ..."
"... Meanwhile, the masses will be cast adrift in a polluted and miserable world where life – as Hobbes put it – will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. ..."
"... As Piketty and Streeck are pointing out to us, the post-neoliberal era has started to self-destruct. Either a post-capitalist, grimly neo-fascist world awaits us, or one shaped by a new and highly creative version of communitarian democracy. It's time for some great imagining. ..."
It is unfashionable, or just embarrassing, to suggest the
taken-for-granted late-modern economic order – neoliberal capitalism – may be in a
terminal decline. At least that's the case in what former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott
likes to call the "Anglosphere" .
What was once known as the Chicago school of economics
– the neoclassical celebration of the "free market" and "small government" – still
closes the minds of economic policymakers in the US and its satellite economies (although
perhaps less so in contemporary Canada).
But, in Europe, there has always been a deep distrust of the Anglo-American celebration
of "possessive individualism" and its repudiation of community and society. Remember Margaret
Thatcher's
contempt for the idea of "society"? So, it is unsurprising that neoliberalism's advocates
dismiss recent European analyses of local, regional and global economies as the nostalgia of
"old Europe", even as neoliberalism's failures stack up unrelentingly.
The consequences of these failures are largely unseen or avoided by policymakers in the
US and their camp followers in the UK and Australia. They are in denial of the fact that not
only has neoliberalism failed to meet its claimed goals, but it has worked devastatingly to
undermine the very foundations of late-modern capitalism. The result is that the whole
shambolic structure is tottering on the edge of an economic abyss.
What the
consequences might be
Two outstanding European scholars who are well aware of the consequences of the neoliberal
catastrophe are French economist Thomas Piketty and German economist Wolfgang Streeck.
Piketty's 2013 book, Capital in the
Twenty-First Century , charts the dangers of socioeconomic inequality in capitalism's
history. He demonstrates how this inequality can be – and has been over time –
fundamentally destructive of sustained economic growth.
Most compellingly, Piketty documented in meticulous detail how contemporary neoliberal
policies have constructed the worst forms of socioeconomic inequalities in history. His
analysis has been underlined by the recent Oxfam report that showed a mere eight
multi-billionaires own the equivalent amount of capital of half of the global population.
Despite Piketty's scrupulous scholarship, Western neoliberal economies continue merrily down
the road to nowhere. The foundations of that road were laid by the egregiously ideological
policies of Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – and slavishly followed by Australian politicians
on all sides ever since.
Streeck's equally detailed scholarship has demonstrated how destructive of capitalism itself
neoliberal policymaking has been. His latest book, How Will Capitalism
End? , demonstrates how this neoliberal capitalism triumphed over its opponents (especially
communism) by devouring its critics and opponents, obviating all possible alternatives to its
predatory ways.
If Streeck is correct, then we need to anticipate what a post-capitalist world may look
like. He thinks it will be terrible. He fears the emergence of a neocorporatist state and close
crony-like collaboration between big capital, union leaders, government and the military as the
consequence of the next major global financial crisis .
Jobs will disappear, Streeck believes. Capital will be intensely concentrated in very
few hands. The privileged rich will retreat into security enclaves dripping with every luxury
imaginable .
Meanwhile, the masses will be cast adrift in a polluted and miserable world where life
– as Hobbes put it – will be solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short.
What comes next is up to us
The extraordinary thing is how little is known or understood of the work of thinkers like
Piketty and Streeck in Australia today.
There have been very fine local scholars, precursors of the Europeans, who have warned about
the hollow promises of "economic rationalism" in Australia.
But, like the Europeans, their wisdom has been sidelined, even as inequality has been
deepening exponentially and its populist consequences have begun to poison our politics,
tearing down the last shreds of our ramshackle democracy.
The time is ripe for some creative imagining of a new post-neoliberal world that will repair
neoliberalism's vast and catastrophic failures while laying the groundwork for an Australia
that can play a leading role in the making of a cosmopolitan and co-operative world.
Three immediate steps can be taken to start on this great journey.
First, we need to see the revival of what American scholar Richard Falk called "globalisation
from below" . This is the enlivening of international civil society to balance the power of
the self-serving elites (multinational managers and their political and military puppets) now
in power.
Second, we need to come up with new forms of democratic governance that reject the fiction
that the current politics of representative government constitute the highest form of
democracy. There is nothing about representative government that is democratic. All it amounts
to is what Vilfredo Pareto described as
"the circulation of elites" who have become remote from – and haughtily contemptuous
of – the people they rule.
Third, we need to see states intervening comprehensively in the so-called "free market".
Apart from re-regulating economic activity, this means positioning public enterprises in
strategic parts of the economy, to compete with the private sector, not on their terms but
exclusively in the interests of all citizens.
As Piketty and Streeck are pointing out to us, the post-neoliberal era has started to
self-destruct. Either a post-capitalist, grimly neo-fascist world awaits us, or one shaped by a
new and highly creative version of communitarian democracy. It's time for some great
imagining.
This article is based on an earlier piece published in John Menadue's blog Pearls
and Irritations.
At the same time, however, it seems fair to point out that Trump and López Obrador both represent what
the Times described as "a global repudiation of the establishment." Indeed, this fact could actually help to distinguish
between the two leaders (along with other populist leaders) and their competing worldviews. While they stand on opposite sides
of the political spectrum, both Trump and López Obrador are part of the global revolt against what critics call neoliberalism,
and this is important for understanding our current era.
The past 30-plus years has been defined by the
political
project
of neoliberalism, spearheaded by the U.S. government and international financial institutions like the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, with the utopian aim of creating a global capitalist economy perfectly guided
by the invisible hand of the market (for neoliberals and free-market fundamentalists, the invisible hand is an almost divine
concept, worshipped in economics departments around the country). The neoliberal era peaked in the 1990s, and in America it
was Democratic President Bill Clinton who accomplished neoliberal "reforms" that right-wingers had long dreamed of, including
financial deregulation, NAFTA and "ending welfare as we knew it" (he would probably have
privatized
Social Security too
had it not been for Monica Lewinsky).
Though the 1990s is often remembered as the beginning of our hyper-partisan age (demonstrated by the Clinton impeachment
scandal), the irony is that Democrats and Republicans became closer than ever before on economic issues during this decade.
The "Washington consensus" dominated this period, and it took a Democrat to pass a Republican trade deal and other
conservative economic policies. (Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party's shift to the right simply resulted in the GOP
shifting even further to the right.)
Neoliberalism was a global project advanced by economic elites. Not surprisingly, then, the neoliberal policies of the past
few decades have benefited those who pushed for them, creating enormous wealth for the richest individuals while leaving the
world grossly unequal. According to Oxfam, 82 percent of the wealth created in 2017
went
to the top one percent
, while the poorest half got nothing. In America alone, inequality is at historic levels and more
than 40 million people live in poverty; a
UN report
from
last month notes that the U.S. "now has one of the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility of any of the rich
countries," and zip codes "are tragically reliable predictors of a child's future employment and income prospects."
Advertisement:
In Europe, Latin America, Asia and the United States, the status quo is no longer acceptable to a populace that has been
betrayed time and again throughout the neoliberal era. Leaders who represent this status quo are being thrown out of office
left and right. Those who have challenged the "establishment" have been labeled "populists" by the press, of course, and
thus are categorized more for what they stand
against
than what they stand
for
(this would be like
identifying the Soviet Union and the U.S. for their anti-fascism, rather than their communism or capitalism).
Some dispute the characterization of right-wing populists as anti-neoliberal, and correctly point out that most of the
Trump administration's economic policies have actually been neoliberalism on steroids (e.g., the GOP tax bill, deregulation,
etc.). Right-wing populism is purely about racism and xenophobia, these critics insist, and to make it about economics is to
ignore these ugly realities. But as Thomas Frank
pointed
out
in The Guardian back in 2016, "trade may be [Trump's] single biggest concern -- not white supremacy."
"It seems to obsess him," wrote Frank, who watched several hours of Trump's speeches. "The destructive free-trade deals our
leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make
to those companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US."
Say what you will about Trump's tendency to lie and spew falsehoods, but on the issue of trade he has actually been pretty
consistent since entering the White House, and free trade is one of the staples of the neoliberal project. On the left, free
trade deals like NAFTA and TPP have also been major talking points, as we saw with Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign in
2016. There are other economic issues where some agreement exists, and right-wing populist parties in Europe are even more
likely to be anti-neoliberal on economic issues. Marine Le Pen's National Front, for example,
opposed
austerity cuts and promised to increase welfare for the working class
(at least for French citizens), while lowering the
retirement age and increasing tariffs to benefit French companies (and, the claim goes, workers too).
Advertisement:
Still, the left- and right-wing alternatives to neoliberalism are poles apart, and the differences between left-populists
like López Obrador and Sanders and right-populists like Trump and Le Pen are hard to overstate. To appreciate just how
different their worldviews are, it is worth considering how the left and right have historically understood themselves in
relation to the Enlightenment and modernity.
Throughout the modern era progressives and reactionaries have more or less rejected the status quo, with thinkers from both
sides offering critiques of the modern world. The fundamental difference was that the left considered itself a part of the
Enlightenment tradition, while the right was part of the "counter-Enlightenment" (this goes back to the French Revolution,
when revolutionaries sat on the left side of the Estates General and royalists sat on the right).
The left criticized modernity not because it rejected the modern world, but because it saw the Enlightenment project as
incomplete. Karl Marx praised the bourgeoisie and called capitalism a "great civilizing influence," considering it to be a
positive development in history. He also wrote the most influential critique of capitalism to date, and while he acknowledged
that capitalism was progress over feudalism, he also believed that it must eventually be replaced with socialism to
realize the goals of the Enlightenment. Put simply, Marx and other leftists believed in the idea of progress, long associated
with the Enlightenment.
On the right, criticisms of modernity came from a very different perspective. Reactionaries did not see the modern world as
progress over the pre-modern world; rather, they saw it as a decline. Driven by nostalgia and resentment, reactionaries
romanticized the past and believed that the ills of modernity could be cured by simply turning back the clock and restoring
the status quo ante.
In his classic book "
Escape from Freedom
," the psychiatrist and
social philosopher Erich Fromm attempted to make sense of the rise of fascism in the early 20th century, and in doing so
offered a penetrating analysis of modernity. While the modern world had liberated men and women from social conventions of the
past and various restrictions on the individual (i.e., "freedom from"), it had also severed what Fromm called "primary bonds,"
which gave security to the individual and provided meaning. Forced from their communities into urban and industrial
environments, modern men and women were left alienated and rootless, feeling powerless and purposeless in the new world.
Advertisement:
There were two ways that people could respond to this situation, Fromm argued; either they could reject freedom
altogether and embrace counter-Enlightenment movements like fascism, or they could progress to a "positive freedom," where one
can relate oneself "spontaneously to the world in love and work."
"If the economic, social and political conditions on which the whole process of human individuation depends, do not offer a
basis for the realization of individuality," wrote Fromm, "while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them
security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden." Freedom, he continued, "becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of
life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some
kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his
freedom."
The reactionary impulse would be to "escape from freedom" and restore the conventions and "primary bonds" of the past,
while the progressive impulse would be to progress to a more complete and dynamic kind of freedom.
The reader may be wondering where all of this fits in with the current revolt against neoliberalism. Put simply, the
neoliberal age has left many people with the same kind of doubts and anxieties that Fromm discussed in his book almost 80
years ago. Numerous articles have been written in recent years about how the policies of neoliberalism have
worsened stress and loneliness
, exacerbated
mental
health problems
,
driven
rising rates of suicide
and the opioid crisis, and left people feeling desperate and hopeless in general. Globalization,
deindustrialization, consumerism and "financialization"; all these economic trends are contributing to the breakdown of our
democratic society, leading some to embrace authoritarian alternatives, as many did in Fromm's day.
From this point of view, the global rise of populism that continued with López Obrador isn't much of a surprise. The
popular rejection of neoliberalism around the world is undeniable at this point, but it is still unclear whether this
rejection of the status quo will lead to reactionary or progressive change in the long run. López Obrador represents
progressive change, as does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's surprise primary victory in New York's 14th congressional district.
Trump and other far-right populists like Le Pen represent something very different.
Advertisement:
It will ultimately come down to which side can offer the more appealing alternative, and the left should recognize that the
more realistic and "pragmatic" approach isn't always the most politically persuasive. One of the most common criticisms of
populists has been that they are selling a pipe dream, which to an extent is true -- especially for right-wing populists who
base their entire worldview on falsehoods. If the left wants to stop reactionary populism, however, it will have to adopt an
unapologetically populist approach of its own, and reject the dogma of neoliberalism once and for all.
Captain
Nonobvious
Leader
21 Jul
Neoliberalism is nothing more than a set of excuses and fables for giving more wealth, power
and income to the rich and well off than they have at any given moment, and for distributing
the assets of ownership and governance across borders, out of reach and jurisdiction of the
people.
Which brings us to today.
But what next? Neoliberalism is ending because enough of society now is owned and run by the top end --completely in Russia,
and mostly, here in the US-- that the people no longer have enough to work with to compete
against oligarchy.
In the US there's no more need for the pretense, so we get the blatant language and behavior of a Trump, and public display
of the aggression against the people and the nation that neoliberalism has been practicing
out of view all along. (It's not actually been so much hidden as willfully ignored by
moderates and commentators since the Administration of the previous lying, delusional
national media star.)
What's next is rapid consolidation of oligarchy. The Supreme Court will be held by oligarchy
fanatics for the coming 40 years, and will be ruling every imaginable practice of liberal or
progressive governance to be unconstitutional. Even an economic collapse like the Great
Depression can't unseat a Court, and no voting majorities can legislate against their
Constitution.
Basho
Leader
21 Jul
No matter how much you pretty up neoliberalism with racial diversity, women' empowerment, and
homosexual rights, it still stinks. Neoliberalism has turned the Democratic Party into a
political-correct Republican Party. All the great accomplishments that came from the1930s to
the mid-70s are gone. Democrats have become the party of the oligarchs and the professional
elites who serve them. They have - as Thomas Frank has suggested - ceased to be the party of
the people. The whole point of neoliberalism is to please big money donors by dismantling all
that Democrats did to help and ordinary working Americans before the1980s. This had been what
Noam Chomsky called Amerca's Golden Age. America had become the finest country to live in in
the entire history of the world. That's gone. Today Democrats join with Republicans in
supporting a corporate oligarchy. If the Democratic Party is to have a future (and if I am to
be a part of it) they must turn to new voices like Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
They need to make Bernie Sanders the Chair of the Democratic Party. And they need to quit
warmongering. The Democratic Party must model itself after Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Andrés
Manuel López Obrador in Mexico. Neoliberalism is a plague. It is anti-democratic. It must
end. The Democratic Party must once again be a moral force for economic justice.
Mike Calcagno
Leader
Basho
23 Jul
Edited
nYes, things were great in American cities in the 60s and 70s. Those riots - how
wonderful? Almost 1000 murders a year in Chicago in the early 70s, more than 2000 a year
in New York. Major American cities looked like Dresden after WWII in many neighborhoods.
LBJ was a warmonger who got 57000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians
killed, and Kennedy won by running to the right of Nixon. You continue to peddle this
nonsense that there was this golden age of liberalism. There was a brief period where the
White working class did well as a result of unions, and because wealthier white men who
served with them during the war felt an obligation to their fellow servicemen. As usual,
you ignore the plight of non-White Americans. I'm not calling you a racist; I'm
challenging you on your myopia. n
Reply
Share
Basho
Leader
Mike Calcagno
23 Jul
Edited
Today we have police armed with military equipment harassing and killing people of color
in American cities. Driving while Black has become a crime. Our Golden Age (which ended in
the 1970s) saw the least economic inequality of any industrialized nation. FDR created an
excellent economic safety net. He essentially created our middle class. Today we have
greatest wealth inequality of any industrialized nation. In the Golden Age we had the
nonviolent Civil Rights Movement (in which I participated.) There was a major peace
movement in the Democratic Party (in which I participated.) We had the War on Poverty.
Unions were strong. Working people had a decent standard of living. The Democratic Party
was actually liberal (The word liberal today has been drained of all meaning.) Kennedy
ran, not to the right of NIxon but as a hawk like Nixon, but at the time of his death he
was working to get out of Vietnam. And he started pushing the Democratic Party towards
civil rights.Kennedy got rid of the evil Alan Dulles as head of the CIA. Today's Dulles's
techniques are a clear part of the Democratic Party's foreign policy. Our CIA is Murder
Incorporated. The Democratic Party that I once loved has gone to hell.
Reply
Share
Show
2
more replies
FreeQuark
Leader
22 Jul
The social agenda of the left is entirely compatible with neoliberalism, and in fact certain
aspects of that social agenda - unrestricted immigration, for example - are fundamental
components of neoliberal economic ideology. Neoliberal politicians who are members of
center/left political parties thus run on a far left social platform and thereby win election
after election over economic progressives. The left has consequently neutered itself on
economics through its overemphasis on social issues. Most people on the left are totally
unwilling to acknowledge that reality, and that is why neoliberals will continue to dominate
center/left politics around the world. Even though "progressives" may manage to win an
election here or there, neoliberals will always be able to maintain overall control of
center/left parties by associating left-wing economics with opposition to immigration and
other alleged "right-wing" causes. For people on the left primarily concerned about
economics, alternative right politicians on the order of Trump or Le Pen are likely to remain
the only viable political options in most elections for a long time to come.
Reply
Share
1 Like
Darren
Tomlyn
Leader
21 Jul
Edited
Humanity now stands at a crossroads, for there's a difference between reacting against the
corruption of civilization, and reacting against civilization itself... The latter is
unfortunately what Trump (and Brexit) truly represents. If the latter is what people vote
for, then they vote for DEATH... Unfortunately, as has been proven throughout the past few
thousand years, this usually ultimately results in their very own death at the same time.
Although neoliberalism has been about the corruption of capitalism - using economic power to
get one part of humanity to essentially wage war on the rest to further their own goals -
this particular underlying economic conflict (the rich and powerful vs everyone else) is
inherent to civilization, and is what government exists to manage. So again, the main problem
stems from people not learning from history and repeating many of the same mistakes, even it
the context and outcomes merely rhyme...
Todd
Dunning
Leader
22 Jul
Can someone here help me out to properly define "Neoliberalism"?
Reply
Share
FreeQuark
Leader
Todd Dunning
22 Jul
Neoliberalism is the idea that the removal of protectionist trade policies, government
regulations, immigration quotas, and other barriers to international commerce is the key
to economic growth and prosperity. It's safe to say I think that the adoption of the
neoliberal policy agenda by many governments around the world has not produced the outcome
that economists and globalist think tanks claimed it would produce. The problem now is
that mainstream political parties in Western countries have bought, hook, line, and sinker
into neoliberalism and are refusing to let it go regardless of its failings. The reason
they won't let it go of course is that most of those parties are controlled by wealthy
people who haven't been harmed by neoliberal policies. I'm guessing Justin Trudeau,
Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and the Clintons have never lost a night's sleep worrying
that the factory they work in may move overseas or that they will lose a job to some
upwardly-mobile immigrant.
Reply
Share
2
Likes
RobertSF
Leader
Todd Dunning
22 Jul
Is there no wiki in your internet? Or are you looking for an argument?
jak123
Leader
21 Jul
Excellent article. Trump and AMLO are similar in that both are insurgents. The question for
both is whether they can make real progress within their respective political systems. The
Russia issue is a test of that. On one side is Trump, who represents a break from the
neoliberal policies of the past (even if many of his policies are neoliberal, as Lynch says),
such as hostility toward Russia, and on the other hand are elements of his government, such
as the intelligence agencies, that backed Clinton and are part of the effort to undermine
Trump because they want to topple Putin to allow the US to plunder Russia. The hysterical
overreaction to the summit. Strzok's shocking testimony to Congress and Mueller's pretend
indictments of Russians who will never stand trial represent an escalation by the elements of
Trump's government who oppose him.
Jana Bacevic
59
2 years ago
PhD researcher at the University of Cambridge, Department of Sociology; sociology of
knowledge, social theory, political economy of knowledge production.
This is an extremely interesting and important question. In the past years, critics are
increasingly proclaiming that neoliberalism has
come to an end
, or at least become too broad or
too vague
to be used as an explanatory term.
Yet, neoliberalism has proven to be remarkably resilient. This, as
Jamie Peck
has argued, may be due to its propensity to 'fail forward', that is, perpetuate
rather than correct or reverse the mechanisms that led to its failures in the first place – the
economic/fiscal policies following the
2008 economic crisis
are a good example. Or it may have to do with what
Boltanski and Chiapello
have dubbed 'the new spirit of capitalism', meaning its capacity to
absorb political and societal challenges and subsume them under the dominant economic paradigm –
as reflected, for instance, in the way neoliberalism has managed to coopt politics of identity.
But the success of neoliberalism has arguably less to do with its performance as an economic
philosophy (at least after 2008, that is patently not the case – even IMF
has admitted
that neoliberal policies may be exacerbating inequality), and more to do with
what seems to be the consensus of political and economic elites over its application.
Neoliberalism allows for the convergence of financial, governmental, military, industrial and
technological networks of power in ways that not only make sustained resistance difficult, but
also increasingly constrain possibilities for thinking about alternatives.
This is not to say that
heterodox economic
ideas are lacking. Alternatives to mainstream (or neo-classical)
economics range from Marxist and Keynesian approaches, to post-Keynesian, participatory, or
'sharing' economies, and the philosophy of
degrowth.
Yet, in the framework of existing system of political and economic relations,
successfully implementing any of these would require a strong political initiative and at least
some level of consensus beyond the level of any single nation-state.
In this sense, the economic philosophy to succeed neoliberalism will be the one that manages
to capture the 'hearts and minds' of those in power. While the Left needs to start developing
sustainable economic alternatives, it seems that, in the short term, economic policies will be
driven either by some sort of
authoritarian populism,
(as for instance in Trump's pre-election speeches), or a new version
of neoliberalism (what
Will Davies
has called "punitive" neoliberalism). Hopefully, even from such a shrunk space,
alternatives can emerge; however, if we are to draw lessons from the
intellectual history of neoliberalism
, they will require long-term political action to
seriously challenge the prevailing economic order.
This isn very important question that i try to answer in my books. I think
regulation and taxation are key, as well as moving toward a more local circular
economy. You can download the books for free at
How many alternative economic systems would you say have been given a fair trial under
reasonably favorable circumstances?
A good question. Answer: admittedly, not a huge number - but not none either. Feudalism
held sway in the middle ages and mercantilism in the 18th century, before both fell out of
fashion. In the 20th century Russia stuck with communism for 74 years, and many other
countries tried it for a while. At one time (around 1949-89) there were enough countries in
the communist block for us to be able to say that they at least had a fair chance to make it
work - that is, if it didn't work, they can't really blame it on the rest of the world
ganging up on them.
Lately, serious challengers to the global economic order have been more isolated
(Venzuela, Cuba, North Korea?) - so maybe you could argue that, if they are struggling, it is
because they have been unfairly ganged up on. But then again, aren't they pursuing a
version of socialism that has close affinities to that tried in the Soviet Union?
The problem with giving any novel political idea a really extended trial is that you have
to try it out on live human beings. This means that, once a critical mass of data has built
up that indicates a political idea doesn't work out as hoped, then people inevitably lose the
will to try that idea again.
So my question is: are critics of the current world economic order able to spell out
exactly how their proposed alternative would differ from Soviet-style socialism?
The key problem is technological dependence on the West and the fact thet there no viable alternative to neoliberalism yet. Resotration
of New Deal is impossible as management and professional classes are now allied with capital owners. So while those Philippics are entertaining,
in reality Russian needs to suffer and try to grow its economics and raise the standard of living of people without rocking the boat
too much. China too.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian and Chinese governments are puzzling. They hold all the cards in the sanction wars and sit there with no wits whatsoever as to how to play them. ..."
"... The Russians are also convinced that they should freely trade their currency, thereby subjecting the ruble to manipulation on foreign exchange markets. If Washington wants to bring a currency crisis to Russia, all the Federal Reserve, its vassal Japanese, EU, and UK central banks have to do is to short the ruble. Hedge funds and speculators join in for the profits. ..."
"... Why don't the Russian and Chinese play their winning hands? The reason is that neither government has any advisers who are not brainwashed by neoliberalism. The brainwashing that Americans gave Russia during the Yeltsin years has been institutionalized in Russian institutions. Trapped in this box, Russia is a sitting duck for Washington. ..."
The Russian and Chinese governments are puzzling. They hold all the cards in the sanction wars and sit there with no wits
whatsoever as to how to play them.
The Russians won't get any help from the Western media which obscures the issue by stressing that the Russian government doesn't
want to deprive its citizens of consumer goods from the West, which is precisely what Washington's sanctions intend to do.
The Russian and Chinese governments are in Washington's hands because Russia and China, thinking that capitalism had won, quickly
adopted American neoliberal economics, which is a propaganda device that serves only American interests. For years NASA has been
unable to function without Russian rocket engines. Despite all the sanctions, insults, military provocations, the Russian government
still sends NASA the engines. Why? Because the Russian economists tell the government that foreign exchange is essential to Russia's
development.
Europe is dependent on Russian energy to run its factories and to keep warm in winter. But Russia does not turn off the energy
in response to Europe's participation in Washington's sanctions, because the Russian economists tell the government that foreign
exchange is essential to Russia's development.
As Michael Hudson and I explained on a number of occasions, this is nonsense. Russia's development is dependent in no way on the
acquisition of foreign currencies.
The Russians are also convinced that they need foreign investment, which serves only to drain profits out of their economy.
The Russians are also convinced that they should freely trade their currency, thereby subjecting the ruble to manipulation
on foreign exchange markets. If Washington wants to bring a currency crisis to Russia, all the Federal Reserve, its vassal Japanese,
EU, and UK central banks have to do is to short the ruble. Hedge funds and speculators join in for the profits.
Neoliberal economics is a hoax, and the Russians have fallen for it.
So have the Chinese.
Suppose that when all these accusations against Russia began -- take the alleged attack on the Skirpals for example -- Putin had
stood up and said:
"The British government is lying through its teeth and so is every government including that of Washington that echoes this
lie. Russia regards this lie as highly provocative and as a part of a propaganda campaign to prepare Western peoples for military
attack on Russia. The constant stream of gratuitous lies and military exercises on our border have convinced Russia that the West
intends war. The consequence will be the total destruction of the United States and its puppets."
That would have been the end of the gratuitous provocations, military exercises, and sanctions.
Instead, we heard about "misunderstandings" with out "American partners," which encouraged more lies and more provocations.
Or, for a more mild response, Putin could have announced:
"As Washington and its servile European puppets have sanctioned us, we are turning off the rocket engines, all energy to Europe,
titanium to US aircraft companies, banning overflights of US cargo and passenger aircraft, and putting in place punitive measures
against all US firms operating in Russia."
One reason, perhaps, that Russia does not do this in addition to Russia's mistaken belief that it needs Western money and good
will is that Russia mistakenly thinks that Washington will steal their European energy market and ship natural gas to Europe. No
such infrastructure exists. It would take several years to develop the infrastructure. By then Europe would have mass unemployment
and would have frozen in several winters.
What about China? China hosts a large number of major US corporations, including Apple, the largest capitalized corporation in
the world. China can simply nationalize without compensation, as South Africa is doing to white South African farmers without any
Western protest, all global corporations operating in China. Washington would be overwhelmed with global corporations demanding removal
of every sanction on China and complete subservience of Washington to the Chinese government.
Or, or in addition, China could dump all $1.2 trillion of its US Treasuries. The Federal Reserve would quickly print the money
to buy the bonds so that the price did not collapse. China could then dump the dollars that the Fed printed in order to redeem the
bonds. The Fed cannot print the foreign currencies with which to purchase the dollars. The dollar would plummet and not be worth
a Venezuelan bolivar unless Washington could order its pupper foreign central banks in Japan, UK, and EU to print their currencies
in order to purchase the dollars. This, even if complied with, would cause a great deal of stress in what is called "the Western
alliance," but what is really Washington's Empire.
Why don't the Russian and Chinese play their winning hands? The reason is that neither government has any advisers who are not
brainwashed by neoliberalism. The brainwashing that Americans gave Russia during the Yeltsin years has been institutionalized in
Russian institutions. Trapped in this box, Russia is a sitting duck for Washington.
Turkey is a perfect opportunity for Russia and China to step forward and remove Turkey from NATO. The two countries could offer
Turkey membership in BRICS, trade deals, and mutual security treaties. China could easily buy up the Turkish currency off foreign
exchange markets. The same could be done for Iran. Yet neither Russia nor China appear capable of decisive action. The two countries,
both under attack as Turkey is from Washington, sit there sucking their thumbs. (See
this )
This article was originally published on the author's blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Putin needs to get himself a good monetary economist not affiliated or influenced by the
Chicago School. The "pension reforms" are an Atlanticist trojan horse to erode the legitimacy
of the government and not a necessary "reform".
Putin has made his reputation "allocating real resources to the common people of Russia,
he should continue to do that.
"... Since the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. ..."
"... These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke). ..."
"... Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom? ..."
The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a
flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for? ...
Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that
is a good thing .
Even if Bershidsky gets it, however in the field which doesn't require any serious skills,
except for good accounting. Now, you don't want me to refer to Russia's actual industries,
especially hi-tech, which are nationalized, do you? Does the title Rostec ring a bell? What
is remarkable, founding of Rostec somehow coincided with Putin's Munich Speech--both events
are hardly any evidence of neoliberalism. Is Putin a liberal? Yes, but to a degree and
political mostly--his progression from liberal economic model to a mixed model since 2014 is
visible to people with even rudimentary knowledge of Russia. This is not to mention that
Russia, quoting even Wiki:
Russia has an upper-middle income mixed economy with state ownership in strategic areas of
the economy.
Some private bank is not a "strategic" area, nor is "liberalization" of land
sales, resources and real hi-tech sector, however, together with agriculture, are. Since
the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or
ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. In fact, whole industries.
Putin recently himself clearly stated that, especially pointing out a bonanza Russian State
got from 2008 collapse and from sanctions.
These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is
considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all
this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead,
together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings.
And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke).
The picture is mixed. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has been given real teeth since its
humiliation by the Customs Service under Medvedev. It goes beyond antimonopoly. For example,
it reviews incoming foreign investment in the 42 strategic industries. This was originally a
protectionist committee. It gave Pepsico a hard time for buying Wimm-Bill-Dann, clearly a
military asset. These days its approach to foreigners is "How can I help you? Do you want
money?" It is frequently chaired by Putin.
Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to
take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom?
Their behaviour is outrageous. Certainly not the kind of corporate governance required for
a competitive market. e.g. Gazprom Bank has a Rotenberg son in charge of loans. Gazprom lent
another Rotenberg son the money to build Aviapark. No Rotenberg capital at risk during the
whole process. Now a $1 Bn asset. Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of
court or make some high level examples?
Rostek, run by Chemezov, whose main qualification is being buddies with Putin in 1980s
East Germany, famous for passing off an
unsuccessful and outdated Taiwanese manufactured and American designed device as an example
of "Russian innovation" [at pilfering government money].
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned. Fortunately, overall domestic economic policy (with said
exceptions) is neoliberal, which rules out a Venezuelan scenario in Russia. That is a good
thing.
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned.
Exactly, nor do you have any qualifications nor skills to write about Russia since, and I
quote Margo Simonyan describing your kind.
Maybe you will finally understand that you do not believe us not because we lie, but
because you know horseradish (dick) about surrounding world, because you are badly
educated, do not read much and when do, do not read what is needed, you visit all the wrong
places and communicate with the same small bunch of prejudiced and/or mental people, who
only reinforce your condescending ignorance.
"... It is not "misunderstood" -- it is a complete caricature which now blows into the faces of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some exceptions merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian language. ..."
"... Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US, regardless of their language proficiency. ..."
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the
Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity.
No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never
go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within
the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his
least attractive features.
Thankfully that chapter of history is over
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how
misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is - to
borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song - is more alive than the living. The Soviet period
has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area:
culture, economy, moral climate, everything.
It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet
standards - culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would
disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the
Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does - the Soviet Union will live one.
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
It is not "misunderstood" -- it is a complete caricature which now blows into the
faces of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some
exceptions merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to
most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not
to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet
emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian
language.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
Here, I have to politely disagree since Russian "liberals" both grant-supported and ones
that are not is a separate animal altogether. First, most of them, grants or no grants, are
the real deal, they got grants because they are the real deal, not the other way around, and
causality in this case really matters.
I don't need even to know if Mr. Nekrasov or Gozman
are grant-eaters, their hatred of everything Russian is palpable. The only weaker feeling
than hatred they have is contempt. This cannot be hidden–it shines through. They do it
for the idea and grants are just a bonus. It all goes back to Russian "Westerners" and
liberals about whom Tyutchev (IIRC) left a profound paragraph.
Russia still is a neoliberal country. What do you expect ?
It is interesting that Russia which oppose neoliberal globalization in foreign policy, implements neoliberal reforms within
the country. The current pensoin reform is clienly neoliberal in spirit, even if it does not include privatization. there is
a big different between those who work at factories and those who work at offices.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this was amply justified. ..."
"... Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime. ..."
"... Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake. ..."
"... I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe. ..."
"... I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level). ..."
"... I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR. ..."
"... Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress. ..."
"... On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned. ..."
Maybe it is presumptuous to express my opinion about another person's faith, but let me
remind you that Putin was a KGB officer and a member of the communist party. As such, he was
(or pretended to be) a militant atheist. Now he publicly goes to church and remains there
throughout the service (mind you, Russian Orthodox Christmas and Easter services are
all-night affairs). Thus, he either lied then or is lying now about his faith. Take your
pick.
Yes, Orthodox Christianity was one of the pillars of Russian culture. But again, let me
remind you that one of the greatest Russian writers, Leo Tolstoy, was excommunicated by the
church. What's more, current patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox church, was
photographed with a watch worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, owns an apartment in the
center of Moscow, likely worth millions of $, and a collection or rare books in this
apartment with a huge value. If you are a Christian, you should know that "it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God" (Matthew 19:24; also Mark 10:25).
I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red
herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that
afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was
that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were
mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this
was amply justified.
I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption. It was first attempt at moving
humanity towards next step in social evolution and it did not happen under the best
conditions. It happened in the country ridden with accumulated problems from previous regime
mishandling the country for a couple of centuries with those issues coming to a head and
after so much pressure it resulted in massive eruption of violence which would have been even
worse without Bolsheviks as it would lead to Russia disintegration and Russian state death.,
There would have happened something similar to modern Ukraine.
Basically there were real
issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force
caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and
these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and
other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism
regime.
Current Russian regime got bad roots and I do not believe anything good will come out of
these bad roots. The system is freakish and rotten at the core. It care s not for people.
Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this. Bolsheviks when they started
made their intentions rather obvious in destroyed and poor country. They assured real human
rights while current system removed those rights and there is no guarantees that we as a
soviet citizen used to enjoy. Obviously things were not perfect. They never are.
Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake.
I also wonder what do you think of spontaneous life appearance? I read some books on this
issue including Dawkins' and Behe, but considering your experience and professional
background it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.
I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge
achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in
Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money
to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical
sites all over Europe.
I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they
degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these
"reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact,
American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US
level).
I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in
the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent
research in Russia now than there was in the USSR.
Huge inequality is another negative,
especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now
continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned
and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that
regress rather than progress.
On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in
international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a
thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps
those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be
damned.
"... The common good "cannot be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't this something we can learn from in the West today? ..."
"... Russia's "[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ..."
"... Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity. ..."
"... The City of Man ..."
"... Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United States. ..."
"... The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr. Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft. ..."
"... Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on political-philosophical issues. ..."
A
staunchly traditional society grapples with modernity's disruptions, seeking conservatisms far
beyond Putinism.
It's a truism that America is a liberal place. Americans emphasize the importance of the
individual and tend to reject notions of hierarchy and authority. Russia by contrast is known
to be a more conservative society, one where the interests of the group come ahead of those of
the individual; and where, for centuries, respect for hierarchy and authority has usually been
the norm.
All the same, the "news" of Russia's return to conservatism has hit many observers in the
West like the proverbial ton of bricks. The typical response has been to
blame the Russian president for steering Russia away from the liberal path, the path of
becoming a "
normal country" with "Western values."
Others have sought to understand Russian political culture on its own terms. A recent
analysis ("The New Eurasians," Times Literary Supplement , May 13, 2015) stands out
from the crowd by making a serious effort to read present-day Russian conservatism in its
historical context. Lesley Chamberlain dismisses the glib reduction of Russia to its
present-day leader. Russia, she writes, is not ruled by Vladimir Putin: to the contrary, "the
power that rules Russia is tradition." Far from it being the case that a benighted Russian
public is being led to conservatism artificially by its government, the reverse is the case:
the vast majority of Russians, perhaps eighty percent "are intensely conservative."
Like most in the commentariat, Chamberlain finds cause for alarm in Russia's return to type.
She worries about a Russia seeking to create "an alternative version of the contemporary
Christian, or post-Christian, world, contiguous with but distinct from the West."
Chamberlain reduces today's incarnation of Russian conservatism to the more or less vague
bundle of geographic and neo-imperial notions that goes by the name Eurasianism, often linked
with the name of Alexander Dugin.
To be sure, anti-Western Eurasianism is part of contemporary Russian conservatism.
But it is only one part. Excessive focus on this angle has created the impression that
Dugin-esque Eurasianism is the only game in town when it comes to Russian conservatism. It
isn't. It's not even the only version of what might be called the 'Russian national greatness'
school of conservatism.
If we wish to understand Russia in something like its true complexity, we have to take the
trouble to listen to it, to let it speak in its own voice instead of constantly projecting onto
it all our own worst fears. Precisely because Eurasianism has already hogged all the attention,
I won't deal with it here.
... ... ...
Liberal Conservatism
Some participants straddled several categories of conservatism at once. In other cases, for
example that of the above-mentioned Makarenko, their thought fit neatly within a single
category -- in his case, that of liberal conservatism.
For Makarenko, modern Russian political practice has far too utilitarian an attitude toward
rule of law and democracy. If it can be demonstrated that the latter support state sovereignty,
then all is well and good; but whenever either are perceived as a threat to the state -- then
democracy and rule of law are always the ones that have to suffer. From his perspective, Russia
would do better to learn from Burke, who looked not so much to the sovereignty of the
state as to the sovereignty of the parliament .
Matveichev, no doubt the most eclectic thinker in the group, on certain subjects occupied
the liberal end of the spectrum. For example, in an essay on corruption and the state, he
approvingly cites the work of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto to make the point that rule
of law -- as it is practiced, nota bene , in the United States -- is the sine qua
non of economic prosperity. What I found fascinating about Matveichev's position is that
he then takes his argument in a Hegelian and Platonic direction.
It is the state -- not the market on its own -- that provides these all important
forms , and bad as the corruption of state institutions may be, a bad form is
nonetheless better than no form at all -- including for business. The common good "cannot
be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as
the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests
may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't
this something we can learn from in the West today?
Left Conservatism
The "left conservatives" at the conference -- represented most prominently by Dr. Alexander
Schipkov, an expert on Church-state relations -- are critical of liberal capitalism
and indeed are also critical of the current Russian state to the extent that its "conservatism"
is reducible merely to "family values" without including the all-important component of
economic fairness. His views are close to that of Catholic Distributists as well as to those of
"radical orthodox" theologians like William Cavanaugh and John Milbank.
According to Schipkov, Russians of various backgrounds (left and right, secular and
religious, red and white) need to forge a common ethic. But in truth, Russia already
has such an ethic, one that unifies all the disparate phases in its often tragic and
contradictory history. Consciously playing off of Weber, Schipkov refers to Russia's
"[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ." In a fascinating essay on
this same subject, Schipkov makes clear that his concept of solidarity owes much to the
writings of the early 20th century German philosopher Max Scheler, who likewise had such a big
impact on the thought of Pope John Paul II.
Though the Russian Church continues to play a defining role in the ethical formation of the
nation -- no other pre-1917 institution, after all, still exists -- over time it will be
replaced by other institutions, according to Schipkov. Like the Catholic Church, the
Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes
out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity.
Creative Conservatism
Because it tends to evoke the disastrous social and economic effects of "liberalisation"
during the 1990s, the term "liberal" has become something of a swear word in today's Russia.
But what, exactly, does this much reviled "liberalism" consist in? In my own presentation
(English translation forthcoming at SolidarityHall.org ) I suggested that Russians need to define
liberalism -- and conservatism -- more carefully, while distinguishing both from their
ideological perversions.
To his credit, Oleg Matveichev has taken the trouble to craft a precise definition of the
liberal doctrine of human nature in terms worthy of a Pierre Manent ( The City of Man
). According to Matveichev, liberalism reconceives the very essence of man as freedom,
self-sufficiency, and self-definition. Seen through this liberal prism, the goal of our
existence becomes self-emancipation from the chains of the past and the dead weight of
tradition.
Having redefined the meaning of history, Matveichev continues, the "liberals" then set about
condemning those who would thwart its "progress," dismissing them as "conservatives" and
"reactionaries." Is it not time, Matveichev asks, to throw off the chains of this label
invented for us by our adversaries? Why define ourselves as mere "conservatives"? Why not
creatively reimagine an alternative 'meaning of history" ourselves?
Can conservatism be "creative?" And if so, how? Mikhail Remizov, president of the National
Strategy Institute, answered, in effect, "how can it be anything else?" Critics on the left
sometimes attack conservatism by saying, that conservatives do not preserve tradition, they
invent it. Remizov dismisses the implied insult, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of
how traditions work: (re)invention " is the normal, creative approach to tradition." Remizov
agrees with Hans-Georg Gadamer that sharply contrasting tradition and modernity is a silly and
flat-footed way of looking at tradition, because the latter is always in any case a complex
creative task of making adjustments and dialectical zig-zags. Such an understanding of culture
and tradition as creativity fits, of course, quite nicely with the philosophy of
Nicholas Berdyaev. It is hard to think of another thinker for whom creativity plays a more
central role.
Alexei Kozyrev, associate dean of the philosophy department at Moscow State University,
illustrated the same creative conservative principle when he spoke of the Russian Orthodox
Church's Social Concept. The task of modern man, according to that document, is to find
creative ways to retrieve the thought of the Church Fathers, for example that of Gregory of
Nyssa, who counseled demonstrating our human dignity "not by domination of the natural world
but by caring for and preserving it." The Social Concept likewise calls for defending the
dignity of the unborn embryo and of the mentally ill. Here, in an unexpected twist, the Western
environmental movement meets the pro-Life movement, challenging perhaps our own ideological
boundaries.
... ...
Dialogue with Russia?
Lesley Chamberlain claimed that Russia is not a puzzle. In fact that is precisely what it
is. As should be clear even from the above very partial survey, Russian conservatism, like
Russia itself, embraces a contradictory collection of flaws and virtues. Both the flaws and the
virtues are large.
Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than
it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference
demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for
their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United
States.
For Western liberals, it is tempting to present Russian conservatism as always intrinsically
dangerous. But I believe the loss is ours. Russian conservatism -- or at any rate important
elements of it -- contains something potentially valuable to the West as it seeks to forge a
strategy for dealing with the growing disorder in the world. What justifies engagement with
Russia is before all else its ability to contribute to solving the problem that all of us face:
how to devise a softer version of western modernity, one which allows for the preservation of
tradition while simultaneously retaining what is most valuable in the liberal
tradition.
The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr.
Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft.
Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on
political-philosophical issues.
The presumption amongst Russian conservatives is not that Russia is perfect as it is but
that Russia's foundational values are good. This is something they have in common with
American conservatives, British Conservatives like Peter Hitchens, and probably most
conservatives in most societies. They would also lament their social ills.
I am not going to accuse you of not having read the article, but that comment of yours
could easily have been made by someone who simply read the title and jumped to the comments
section.
The author's point on free speech is an important one – there is a lot of very deep and
open discussion in Russia at the moment about the country's direction (including even
television debates with ten times the intellectual content of what we find in the States).
Putinism is not a clear ideological system, and for the most part there is no official
orthodoxy being pressed on scholars or the public, many currents exist. Most of the major
viable currents, as this article suggests, are variants of conservatism; Western-style
liberal democracy has (at the moment) lost nearly all it's appeal to the intelligentsia and
the average person alike.
Re: Jon F's comment – unfortunately, in my view he is right. We shouldn't believe
that Russia is a place of thriving family values simply because they say it more often and
louder. Statistics are not the best way to see this – I personally believe (from
experience in the capital and the provinces) that if Russians divorce less, they cheat more.
If they have fewer abortions, they have more children born into undesirable childhoods.
Russian conservatism does have its virtues and the country must to admire, but respect for
women and children are far from a given.
The tendency to see Russia in black/white only, with a pre-imposed bias is no different than
the tendency to see the US (and sometimes the west) and its values in similar manichean
perspectives. Adding depth and colour to the other takes work, and especially the willingness
to empathise, even for a little while, in order to gain more understanding, before employing
a critical eye. And from this perspective I think the article does a good job.
W. Burns: I don't recall that specific issue raised at the conference, but the Revolution and
subsequent experience is much debated, including in other writings by the participants, e.g.
by Shchipkov (his preferred spelling btw, not my Schipkov), whose take is much like that of
Berdyaev: the communist experience is in partial continuity with aspects of Russia's
tradition, e.g. of economic 'fairness' (equalizing plots on the peasant commune, etc.) and
privileging the group over the individual. I started with the analysis by L. Chamberlain in
part because her wide lens-perspective helps make sense of that experience.
David Naas and Cornel Lencar: I wish there were more who shared your perspective. Thanks.
Regarding Russian values vs. practice, aspirations vs. real-world problems. Who among us is
without sin? Is U.S. practice so pristine that we should disdain talking to the Russian side?
That is the material point.
Since the conference I have continued reading the work of these (and other conference)
attendees meant for a Russian audience. They are very, very far from smug about their
internal problems; quite the contrary.
Dave P.: As far as I know, the conference Proceedings so far are only in Russian, but there
are pretty detailed English-language abstracts. Try contacting ISEPR (their site, ISEPR.ru,
also has an English-language version).
It looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence:
Non-interventionism. End the wars for the expansion of American neoliberal empire.
Détente was Russia. Abolishing NATO and saving money on this. Let European defend themselves.
Etc.
No to neoliberal globalization. Abolishing of transnational treaties that favor large
multinationals such as TPP, NAFTA, etc. Tariffs and other means of punishing corporations who
move production overseas. Repatriation of foreign profits to the USA and closing of tax holes
which allow to keep profits in tax heavens without paying a dime to the US government.
No to neoliberal "transnational job market" -- free movement of labor. Criminal prosecution
and deportation of illegal immigrants. Cutting intake of refugees. Curtailing legal immigration,
especially fake and abused programs like H1B. Making it more difficult for people from countries
with substantial terrorist risk to enter the USA including temporary prohibition of issuing visas
from certain (pretty populous) Muslim countries.
No to the multiculturalism. Stress on "Christian past" and "white heritage" of American
society and the role of whites in building the country. Rejection of advertising "special rights"
of minorities such as black population, LGBT, etc. Promotion them as "identity wedges" in elections
was the trick so dear to DemoRats and, especially Hillary and Obama.
That means that Trump election platform on an intuitive level has caught several important problem
that were created in the US society by dismantling of the "New Deal" and rampant neoliberalism practiced
since Reagan ("Greed is good" mantra).
Of cause, after election he decided to practice the same "bait and switch" maneuver as Obama.
Generally he folded in less then 100 days. Not without help from DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats)
which created a witch hunt over "Russian ties" with their dreams of the second Watergate.
But in any case, this platform still provides a path to election victory in any forthcoming election,
as problems listed are real , are not solved, and are extremely important for lower 90% of Americans.
Tulsi Gabbard so far is that only democratic politician that IMHO qualifies. Sanders is way too old
and somewhat inconsistent on No.1.
Frank was the first to note this "revolutionary" part of Tramp platform:
Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble
and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in
which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years.
But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good
part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build
a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame.
He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by
Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
"... No I want the return on New Deal Capitalism. But this is impossible as managerial class changed it allegiance and the political block that made the New Deal possible no longer exists. ..."
"... I do not see the alternative to neoliberalism right now. Soviet style "state capitalism" (which some call socialism) is definitely worse. Over centralization proved to be really deadly for large states. ..."
"... Left is not panacea for solving economic problems. Neither is the US style neoliberalism. There is probably "golden level" in redistributive policies like in tennis: if you hold the racket too tightly you can't play well; if you hold it too lose (deregulation) you can't play well either. ..."
So, you want Chavez style government
with all the wealth redistributed to the masses and the central bank printing money like crazy
so everyone is able to consume far more than is produced?
Or do you blame Obama for US oil production
doubling while oil demand was cut by efficiency and alternatives thus destroying half the wealth
in Venezuela, the half Chavez hadn't yet redistributed?
I can't figure out which is worse, the free lunch right-wing or the free lunch leftist.
"So, you want Chavez style
government with all the wealth redistributed to the masses and the central bank printing
money like crazy so everyone is able to consume far more than is produced?"
No I want
the return on New Deal Capitalism. But this is impossible as managerial class changed it
allegiance and the political block that made the New Deal possible no longer exists.
I do not see the alternative to neoliberalism right now. Soviet style "state capitalism"
(which some call socialism) is definitely worse. Over centralization proved to be really
deadly for large states.
As for Venezuela we simply do not know what part of their problems were created externally
(being of the same continent with Uncle Sam and not to dance to his neoliberal tune is a
dangerous undertaking, if you ask me). Please note the Argentina and Brazil already folded
and neoliberal governments are in power again, and not without help from Uncle Sam.
And what part are internal and rooted in mismanagement of the economy due to corruption
within the left government and or unrealistic redistribution policies.
Left is not panacea for solving economic problems. Neither is the US style neoliberalism.
There is probably "golden level" in redistributive policies like in tennis: if you hold
the racket too tightly you can't play well; if you hold it too lose (deregulation) you can't
play well either.
Readers might like to know that Davis Sloan Wilson is a fervent champion
of the importance of group selection in evolution, a possible mechanism
(differential survival among groups, distinct in genetically-based
socially-mediated characters) often deployed as an 'explanation' for
altruistic behaviours. He also sees an understanding of group selection as
crucial to the solution of myriad human social ills: "Evolutionary science,"
Wilson argues, "will eventually prove so useful on a daily basis that we
will wonder how we survived without it. I'm here to make that day come
sooner rather than later, starting with my own city of Binghamton [NY]."
After decades of effort, he has so far failed to make many converts, and
the prevailing view is that, while group selection is indeed a mechanism
that might possibly operate in some circumstances, those circumstances are
generally very limited in most organisms, and, moreover, the strength of
group selection will almost always be much lower than that operating among
individuals. As Jerry Coyne put it in a commentary on Wilson's
"Neighbourhood Project" in the NYT: "Group selection isn't widely accepted
by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it's not an efficient way to
select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be
detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form
other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other
organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the
tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural
selection favoring cheaters. Further, little evidence exists that selection
on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more
plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for
reciprocal support, could have made humans prosocial." see
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/books/review/the-neighborhood-project-by-david-sloan-wilson-book-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
almost all the increment in incomes
has been harvested by the top 1%. As values,
principles and moral purpose are lost, the promise of growth is all that's left.
You can see the effects in a
leaked memo
from the UK's Foreign Office: "Trade and growth are now priorities
for all posts work like climate change and illegal wildlife trade will be scaled
down." All that counts is the rate at which we turn natural wealth into cash. If this
destroys our prosperity and the wonders that surround us, who cares?
We cannot hope to address our predicament without a new worldview. We cannot use
the models that caused our crises to solve them. We need to reframe the problem. This
is what the most inspiring book published so far this year has done.
In
Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
, Kate
Raworth of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute reminds us that
economic growth was not, at first, intended to signify wellbeing.
Simon Kuznets
, who standardised the measurement of growth, warned: "The welfare
of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income." Economic
growth, he pointed out, measured only annual flow, rather than stocks of wealth and
their distribution.
Raworth
points out that economics in the 20th century "lost the desire to
articulate its goals". It aspired to be a science of human behaviour: a science based
on a deeply flawed portrait of humanity. The dominant model – "rational economic
man", self-interested, isolated, calculating – says more about the nature of
economists than it does about other humans. The loss of an explicit objective allowed
the discipline to be captured by a proxy goal: endless growth.
The aim of economic activity, she argues, should be "meeting the needs of all
within the means of the planet". Instead of economies that need to grow, whether or
not they make us thrive, we need economies that "make us thrive, whether or not they
grow". This means changing our picture of what the economy is and how it works.
The central image in mainstream economics is the circular flow diagram. It depicts
a closed flow of income cycling between households, businesses, banks, government and
trade, operating in a social and ecological vacuum. Energy, materials, the natural
world, human society, power, the wealth we hold in common all are missing from the
model. The unpaid work of carers – principally women – is ignored, though no economy
could function without them. Like rational economic man, this representation of
economic activity bears little relationship to reality.
So Raworth begins by redrawing the economy. She embeds it in the Earth's systems
and in society, showing how it depends on the flow of materials and energy, and
reminding us that we are more than just workers, consumers and owners of capital.
If people can:
1. understand the nature of money which
is in fact energy
2. bypass fiat currencies and therefore
Immune to all the misery from these fake
money (such as unfair wealth
distribution...etc)
3. have some elementary-math
understanding about energy constraint by
https://1drv.ms/o/s!AlY9OXkn9NHujFuH2HElKWc3WgeJ
A proper land tax, progressive taxation
and a utter ruthless pursuit of those
that don't pay their share. Oh and,
here's a thought, corporation tax not
set at a pissy ridiculous level. But
then the great British public always
vote for the opposite of all these
things. Well done!
Reply
Share
Let down in the last few sentences.
Idealised models are all well and good
but the crucial issue is the current
wealth distribution and the unequal
power that stems from it. We now live in
an era of nationalist autocracies, a
necessary carapace for post capitalism
but definitely not a prerequisite for
the kind of model you describe.
Reply
Share
Constant economic growth also
necessitates a pyramid scheme of
constant population growth to supply
labor.
In Western countries with low birth
rates and high salaries, this translates
into our oligarchs adopting the
neoliberal model of immigration,
globalization, and free trade.
From a certain perspective, all the
recent political upheaval in the West
(Brexit, Trump, Etc.) can be described
as the working classes realizing what
"constant growth" and resulting
neoliberalism means for them and their
children personally.
Another interesting model is that of the
Gift-economy, the system that dominated
the world during millenia (and persists
somewhat today). In its extreme form -
the potlatch - an entire society's drive
is based on how much wealth it can give
away, not take. Georges Bataille
described this as "feneral economics"
whereas academic economists' mumblings
he called "restricted economics", a
purely useless attempt to erase life.
Time to read him and the anthropologists
(Mauss, Bloch, Mead, Levi-Strauss) who
described this, again.
State-owned banks
would
invest in projects that transform our
relationship with the living world,
State owned banks? As in a
nationalised banking alternative....in
Britain?
Mention the word "nationalisation" in
London and the Home Counties and
everyone, from the middle-classes
upwards, immediately assumes this must
mean a return to Miners strikes, a three
day week, power cuts, flared trousers,
beer and sandwiches, formica kitchen
workops, the lot!
State-owned banks is what we got
after the 2008 banking crisis. But if
your suggestion is that politicians
can make better investment decisions
than commercial banks and with access
to all the money printing power of
the economy then that would be truly
scary.
Reply
Share
Nothing wrong with flared trousers or
miners' strikes ot Formica. And even
power cuts would be tolerable if they
meant absence of HIV, 3-day weeks and
a thoroughly humiliated, depressed
Establishment - my idea of heaven :)
Reply
Share
This looks like an extension to John
Elkington's triple bottom line model
published in 1997, updated to embrace
the advance of social enterprise and to
acknowledge the ever greater impact of
global warming.
I'd will have to read
the full book to understand this new
model better. It would be interesting to
see how any government, in power or in
waiting, could articulate real
objectives associated with this model to
give a sense that we were on a better
economic journey than present.
Thoughtful and well presented article..
BUT...Until money and the worship of
power it creates is relieved of its God
like status..the 'opening' towards a
more sustainable values system continues
to be a very tough sell...in essence,
the door remains closed..
Reply
Share
An economic model is supposed to
describe way the economy actually works,
not the way you would like it to work.
To judge that I suppose I will have to
read the book and perhaps some critical
reviews, since you can't get and sense
of that from Monbiot's article. Does it
provide a better forecast about the
effect of Brexit for example? would it
have predicted the financial crash of
2008? If it can't do these things then
it isn't an economic model but it might
be a philosophy or belief system like
Zen Buddhism and should be treated with
the same level of detachment we would
apply to such faiths, including that of
Monbiot.
One where people were incentivised to
mis-price assets and not
de-incentivised from doing so.
Because one of the rules of an
economic model is that people respond
to incentives.
People declaim that "economics" is
dead as proved by 2008, whereas what
the crash actually proves is that
ignoring some of the incentives means
you don't understand what people are
doing.
"Economics" is not the model, it's
the modelling process. Climatology,
to pick another modelling discipline,
has produced some astoundingly wrong
results in the past -- the 1970s
cooling hypothesis, for example --
but we don't declare it dead, we let
it have more goes in the hope of
getting outputs which help us
understand the world.
I mistakenly gave you a thumbs up
before I realized that "tawhid"
refers to the monotheistic belief
that muslims adopted from the older
Jewish religion (islam and
christianity both being Jewish
religions). Just religious propaganda
on your part, in other words.
Religion is a load of crap so I take
back my thumbs up. Fuck "God". Fuck
religion.
Your earlier post about
the interview with Banisadr looks
more interesting.
We are converging on a realisation that
we have things catastrophically wrong
and continue to do so. George
understands,
Kate clearly understands
and
Peter Joseph
more than understands
to create a movement. I've hopefully
tried to connect Peter and Kate through
Twitter, Kate has responded favourably.
Currently reading '
The
New Human Rights Movement'
and have
'Doughnut Economics' on order. We have
solutions but will we overcome
resistance in culture due to ignorance
and religion? I hope so but have little
'faith' in the way that humanity is
conducting itself with regard to itself
and the planet.
Tell it how it is Peter and Kate. We
need a new direction toward happiness,
sustainability and understanding. Our
current power structures are crumbling
and rightly so...
Sadly it will probably take a
catastrophic collapse before any new
model is implemented. It was only in
the wake of WW2 that social welfare
systems and health services were set
up in western countries. I am fearful
of what we might have to endure
before a political consensus emerges
that a new economic model is needed.
Reply
Share
>"It was only in the wake of WW2 that
social welfare systems and health
services were set up in western
countries."
Grossly untrue. Such
systems, albeit primitive compared to
the NHS but not the state pension,
were pioneered by Bismarck (a
conservative!) in Germany around
1870. The German healthcare system
still suffers from a "first adopter"
syndrome.
"then demand that those who wield power
start working towards its objectives:" -
I am very willing. Do you think an email
will do the trick?
Reply
Share
I think this probably counts as an
interesting economic description but I
don't see it as a great leap forward of
understanding at the practical level.
The advice for how an economy should be
run as opposed to the current approach
doesn't change. Forget deficits and
surpluses, forget growth and don't
obsess about inflation, in a well run
economy, these things will look after
themselves.
A well run economy is one which
maximises its main potential, which is
its workforce by trying to ensure
they're in gainful employment (less than
2% unemployment)
. Gainful employment
means not massaging the numbers by
making delivery drivers self-employed or
using zero hours contracts but having
people do useful work for proper wages
and if the private sector can't always
supply it then the public sector should
- that is real work not just New-Labour
bean counting (measuring what other
people do). Do that and you will always
(by definition) have enough growth and
whilst at times you will (if you bother
to check) run big public deficits, you
are also likely to find yourself running
occasional public surpluses.
Beyond that you want to encourage work
which utilises renewables &/or recycling
and discourage plundering natural
resources - including foreign resources,
the tax system can help with that, make
the polluters & plunderers subsidise the
recyclers, as well as other , currently
seen as a sin, government interference
in markets.
Sounds nice but...what about about
automation destroying lots of the
lovely jobs you're talking about? It
seems to me that a crucial question
for our times is whether in the face
of the latest wave of automation, AI
and machine learning, the lump of
labour fallacy will still hold true.
If it doesn't, I forecast a lot of
violence and death in addition to the
violence and death that climate
change and antibiotic resistance are
already causing and which I
respectfully suggest is going to grow
exponentially.
Unemployment isn't measured by what
the government says it is. It's
measured by phoning people up and
asking them if they think they're in
work. In order to get the figures
down, you'd have to get a bunch of
unemployed people to say they were in
work in order for them to help out a
government they presumably don't
think much of.
I think my interview with Iran's former
president, Banisadr who lives in exile,
can enrich the argument. Especially the
part, which talks about the structural
problems with capitalism and the way to
overcome it:
We also need a society which meets our
psychological needs as well as our
material and environmental needs on a
sustainable basis. Thankfully the fairly
new field of positive psychology is now
showing us how to do this and there have
recently been prestigious conferences in
London and Dubai involving the OECD and
government personnel around the world
centred on adapting policies to meet
these needs. This is the missing
ingredient that can help us create a
better world. But it will require a mass
movement focussing on these three
elements to galvanise opinion formers
and the political community into taking
the necessary action.
Positive psychology, while admirable
in it's goals, has suffered from a
lack of empirical data to support
it's theories. For ages it was
focused on theories and half assed
science (admittedly it's been a while
since I visited it). They have had
the positive influence in that people
are researching topics in parallel
with positive psychology. Though many
researchers still try to distance
themselves from that field due to the
lack of empiricism* that was rife.
It has potential though, I'll say
that, and it's aims are admirable.
*I don't know if that's still the
case!! It just used to be one of it's
many criticisms. I heard a research
proposal recently investigating
resilience using fMRI, and many of
the proposal's themes resonated with
positive psychology. When I brought
that up, there were a few raised
eyebrows and a sigh of relief when I
pointed out that it was simply a
comment on the parallelism...
It basically drifts far too close to
pseudo-psychology to be taken
serious. If it could rain that in and
pull itself towards a more empirical
approach then people within the
scientific community would be more
willing to engage. Otherwise you
might as well get tips on how to fold
your arms (and what that conveys)
from Cosmopolitan, or engage in
'power stance' to feel more
'confident'... both perfect examples
of pseudo-psychology.
Again, these
are general (and fair) criticisms of
positive psychology. It does have
aspects I like, for example they try
to develop techniques for improving
mental health (or well-being as they
would maybe refer to it as) that
don't require a physician or a
psychologist. Ones that you can do on
your phone and what have you. Which
would be great if there was
sufficient evidence that their
techniques work.
I'm bemused by Mr Monbiots arguments. He
seems to be railing against the
monitizing of society, and yet moans
about the lack of money for carers? This
caring argument seems to include
housework, a lot of which is done by
women, though why or who would pay for
this type of caring is always
unexplained. I'd have thought that just
being human demands a certain level
domestic care from everyone ? Then
there's the community energy idea. It
sounds lovely and cosey, if a bit
Royston Vasey, but doesn't he wonder why
the old local authority power generators
stopped working, and a National Grid was
developed? What's called the After
Diversity Maximum Demand, on an
electrical system might give him a clue
as to why big generators and a
transmission system beats lots of little
generators hands down.
It's the irony of the modern left. On
the one hand, bemoaning the rich for
always wanting more money and on the
other, demanding more money....
Reply
Share
The example you give, the National
Grid, was a socialist creation,
stolen from the UK people by the
vile, despicable and fortunately very
dead Margaret Thatcher, the worst
thing to have happened to Britain
since Adolf Hitler.
Reply
Share
The aim of economic activity, she
argues, should be "meeting the needs
of all within the means of the
planet".
is a paraphrase of the most likely
criminal
and bankster gofer Maurice
Strong's "definition" of sustainability.
"Development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet
their own needs."
as filtered through the openly
Communist UN Bruntland Commission.
It is a Technocratic, UN-
corporatist- global governance-based
ideology that -- to nobody's surprise --
Monbiot thinks is newly-baked and right
out of the oven.
And the radical new doughnut way of
looking at global development is
straight out of UN Agenda 21/30.
The undercooked intellectual pudding
Monbiot is slopping about in and
describing as the finest chocolate
mousse since sliced bread, is just an
old and rejected 1930's version of
Technocracy, which was revised in the
1970s, and then, again in the 1990s, and
which, at its heart, is nothing but the
call for the institution of a fascistic
world government that will, we are
assured, give us more social justice
than we could ever need.
If the author of the reviewed book
hasn't made these attributions, and is
passing this global governance schematic
and MO off as her own, then she's
plagiarizing.
A Lefty Legend Pleads for a Return to a New Deal Ethos
By JONATHAN MARTIN
MARCH 7, 2017
WASHINGTON - Charles Peters, the renowned Washington
Monthly editor, is going on 91, does not get around very
easily and was disgusted enough by President Trump's address
to Congress to let loose a few profanities in his gentle West
Virginia drawl.
But Mr. Peters remains an optimist, believing that
salvation is still possible if the country returns to the
true faith of his New Deal youth.
"Maybe I'm old," he said in an interview in his living
room here last week, "but I'm forever hopeful about the
Democratic Party."
Mr. Peters has spent much of his life in and around
politics. He was once a young state legislator who thought he
wanted to be governor. Then he felt the tug to the nation's
capital, where he was one of the first executives of the
Peace Corps.
Eventually he founded and ran a feisty, liberal-leaning
policy magazine perhaps best known for launching the careers
of dozens of prominent journalists, including James Fallows,
Jon Meacham, David Ignatius and Katherine Boo. Now he has
written a book that some of those old charges think amounts
to a last testament.
To hear Mr. Peters himself tell it, though, the book, "We
Do Our Part," is a desperate plea to his country and party to
resist the temptations of greed, materialism and elitism -
vices he believes have corroded the civic culture and led to
the Democrats' failure last year.
"I'm trying to grab people by the lapels and say, 'We've
got to change,'" he said. "And I feel that there is a realism
to that hope because of the shock of this election."
Mr. Peters's book - the title is taken from the motto of
the New Deal's National Recovery Administration - is not a
memoir. But his own formative experiences are at the core of
his cri de coeur.
Democrats, Washington and too much of the country, he
argues, have drifted from the sense of shared purpose that
lifted America out of the Depression, created the will to win
World War II and fostered the rise of a more egalitarian, if
still inequitable, society.
Mr. Peters saw it firsthand. As a child, he witnessed his
parents hand food to hungry strangers who came to the back
door of their Charleston, W.Va., home.
Later, as a young lawyer, he oversaw the local
presidential campaign of a Catholic senator hoping to win
over a largely Protestant state. The success of John F.
Kennedy in the 1960 Democratic primary there helped forge a
conviction that Mr. Peters feels his party must not lose
sight of today, even as more working-class whites drift from
what was the party of their class.
"The better angels of the state's voters had won out,
engraving on me the lesson that prejudice can be overcome,"
he writes.
Mr. Peters's idealism is undiminished: He thinks that the
sort of blue-collar white voters who just rejected Hillary
Clinton in his native state, where she lost by 42 percentage
points, can be won back if Democrats are again seen as the
party of the common man rather than the liberal professional
class. But he spends much of 274 pages outlining why that may
prove so difficult.
Through a series of anecdotes, statistics and other
plucked-from-the-news items that will be familiar to anyone
who read his "Tilting at Windmills" column in Washington
Monthly, Mr. Peters recounts how liberals were once
invigorated with the public-spirited fervor of the New Deal
and New Frontier, but sold out. Race-baiting conservatives
then swooped in, he says, and the country was left the worse
for it.
"Our national problem is that too many of our cultural
winds are blowing us in the direction of self-absorption,
self-promotion, and making a barrel of money," he writes.
He piles up the evidence, reserving most of his scorn for
the liberal meritocratic class that he believes has allowed
Democrats to be depicted as out of touch.
For those of you who are interested in a brief, but quite penetrating introduction to Marx's overall
project (I realize this may seem like an acquired taste), as understood and elaborated upon by Harvey,
might I suggest watching this lecture? It includes a (newly developed) visualization of how capital
circulates through its various moments (resources, labor power, commodities that then have to be
sold, etc.), analogous to how water goes through the various stages listed in the water cycle: David
Harvey, Visualizing Capital
.
Main problem with it: 'taxes funds govt spending' - he should really talk to Michael Hudson about
this.
Our situation with neoliberalism reminds me lines from the "Hotel California " ;-)
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html
== quote ==
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "
We can agree that all politico-economic
systems tried thus far by man have fatal flaws. Ours just works better, or has, for longer than any
other, so far that is.
Out situation with neoliberalism
reminds me lines from "Hotel California ;-)
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html
== quote ==
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "
It has worked for longer than
its contemporary contenders. E.g. the Roman empire could point to more centuries of existence.
When would you say "this system" started? E.g. is the current US a smooth continuation of the
late 1700's version, or were there "reboots" in between? How about a continuation of British
capitalism (also 1700s or earlier)?
I think his point was that the
USA (1776 - current)=="USA capitalism" which is around 200 years old outlasted Bolshevism which
lasted for only 74 years.
Of course, British capitalism is as long existing as the US capitalism (probably slightly
longer, as we can view period of slave ownership as "imperfect" or mixed capitalism).
In other words capitalism in its various forms is a relatively long term social system.
Which experienced several, often dramatic, transformations along the way. Probably all post
Napoleonic years can be viewed as years of existence of capitalism. So the USA is as old as
capitalism itself.
Of course various forms of capitalism are short lived:
New Deal capitalism (1933-1980) lasted around 47 years.
neoliberalism (around 1980-current) is approximately 37 years old.
In this sense Bolshevism (which Chinese viewed as a form of imperialism ;-) which lasted
74 years or so outlasted them.
"... More than any other economist of his century, Marx tied together the three major kinds of crisis that were occurring. His Theories of Surplus Value explained the two main forms of crises his classical predecessors had pointed to, and which the bourgeois revolutions of 1848 were fought over. These crises were the result of survivals from Europe's feudal epoch of landed aristocracy and banking fortunes. ..."
"... Financially, Marx pointed to the tendency of debts to grow exponentially, independently of the economy's ability to pay, and indeed faster than the economy itself. The rise in debt and accrual of interest was autonomous from the industrial capital and wage labor dynamics on which Volume I of Capital focused. Debts are self-expanding by purely mathematical rules – the "magic of compound interest." ..."
"... Industrial companies profit from labor not only by employing it, but by lending to customers. General Motors made most of its profits for many years by its credit arm, GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corp.), as did General Electric through its financial arm. Profits made by Macy's and other retailers on their credit card lending sometimes accounted for their entire earnings. ..."
"... This privatization of rents and their transformation into a flow of interest payments (shifting the tax burden onto wage income and corporate profits) represents a failure of industrial capitalism to free society from the legacies of feudalism. ..."
"... Marx expected economies to act in their long-term interest to increase the means of production and avoid unproductive rentier income, underconsumption and debt deflation. Believing that every mode of production was shaped by the technological, political and social needs of economies to advance, he expected banking and finance to become subordinate to these dynamics. ..."
"... It seemed that the banking system's role as allocator of credit would pave the way for a socialist organization of economies. Marx endorsed free trade on the ground that industrial capitalism would transform and modernize the world's backward countries. Instead, it has brought Western rentier finance and privatization of the land and natural resources, and even brought the right to use these country's currencies and financial systems as casinos. And in the advanced creditor nations, failure of the U.S. and European economies to recover from their 2008 financial crisis stems from leaving in place the reckless "junk mortgage" debts, whose carrying charges are absorbing income. Banks were saved instead of industrial economies, whose debts were left in place. ..."
"... No observer of Marx's epoch was so pessimistic as to expect finance capital to overpower industrial capitalism, engulfing economies as the world is seeing today. Discussing the 1857 financial crisis, Marx showed how unthinkable anything like the 2008-09 Bush-Obama bailout of financial speculators seemed to be in his day. "The entire artificial system of forced expansion of the reproduction process cannot, of course, be remedied by having some bank, like the Bank of England, give to all the swindlers the deficient capital by means of its paper and having it buy up all the depreciated commodities at their old nominal values." [6] ..."
"... Marx wrote this reductio ad absurdum not dreaming that it would become the Federal Reserve's policy in autumn 2008. The U.S. Treasury paid off all of A.I.G.'s gambles and other counterparty "casino capitalist" losses at taxpayer expense, followed by the Federal Reserve buying junk mortgage packages at par. ..."
"... The failure to socialize banking (or even to complete its industrialization) has become the most glaring economic tragedy of Western industrial capitalism. It became the tragedy of post-Soviet Russia after 1991, letting its natural resources and industrial economy be financialized while failing to tax land and natural resource rent. The commanding heights were sold to domestic oligarchs and Western investors buying on credit with their own banks or in association with Western banks. This bank credit was simply created on computer keyboards. Such credit creation should be a public utility, but it has broken free from public regulation in the West. That credit is now reaching out to China and the post-Soviet economies as a means of appropriating their resources. ..."
"... Note: Marx described productive capital investment by the formula M–C–M´, signifying money (M) invested to produce commodities (C) that sell for yet more money (M´). But the growth of "usury capital" – government bond financing for war deficits, and consumer lending (mortgages, personal loans and credit card debt) – consist of the disembodied M–M´, making money simply from money in a sterile operation. ..."
The Paradox of Financialized Industrialization
By Michael Friday, October 16, 2015
These remarks were made at the World Congress on Marxism, 2015, at the School of Marxism, Peking
University, October 10, 2015. The presentation was part of a debate with Bertell Ollman (NYU).
I was honored to be made a permanent Guest Professor at China's most prestigious university.
When I lectured here at the Marxist School six years ago, someone asked me whether Marx was
right or wrong. I didn't know how to answer this question at the time, because the answer is so
complex. But at least today I can focus on his view of crises.
More than any other economist of his century, Marx tied together the three major kinds
of crisis that were occurring. His Theories of Surplus Value explained the two main forms of crises
his classical predecessors had pointed to, and which the bourgeois revolutions of 1848 were fought
over. These crises were the result of survivals from Europe's feudal epoch of landed aristocracy
and banking fortunes.
Financially, Marx pointed to the tendency of debts to grow exponentially, independently
of the economy's ability to pay, and indeed faster than the economy itself. The rise in debt and
accrual of interest was autonomous from the industrial capital and wage labor dynamics on which
Volume I of Capital focused. Debts are self-expanding by purely mathematical rules – the "magic
of compound interest."
We can see in America and Europe how interest charges, stock buybacks, debt leveraging and
other financial maneuverings eat into profits, deterring investment in plant and equipment by
diverting revenue to economically empty financial operations. Marx called finance capital "imaginary"
or "fictitious" to the extent that it does not stem from within the industrial economy, and because
– in the end – its demands for payment cannot be met. Calling this financial accrual a "void form
of capital."
[1] It was fictitious because it consisted of bonds, mortgages, bank loans and other rentier
claims on the means of production and the flow of wages, profit and tangible capital investment.
The second factor leading to economic crisis was more long-term: Ricardian land rent. Landlords
and monopolists levied an "ownership tax" on the economy by extracting rent as a result of privileges
that (like interest) were independent of the mode of production. Land rent would rise as economies
became larger and more prosperous. More and more of the economic surplus (profits and surplus
value) would be diverted to owners of land, natural resources and monopolies. These forms of economic
rent were the result of privileges that had no intrinsic value or cost of production. Ultimately,
they would push up wage levels and leave no room for profit. Marx described this as Ricardo's
Armageddon.
These two contributing forces to crisis, Marx pointed out, were legacies of Europe's feudal
origins: landlords conquering the land and appropriating natural resources and infrastructure;
and banks, which remained largely usurious and predatory, making war loans to governments and
exploiting consumers in petty usury. Rent and interest were in large part the products of wars.
As such, they were external to the means of production and its direct cost (that is, the value
of products).
Most of all, of course, Marx pointed to the form of exploitation of wage labor by its employers.
That did indeed stem from the capitalist production process. Bertell Ollman has just explained
that dynamic so well that I need not repeat it here.
Today's economic crisis in the West: financial and rent extraction, leading to debt deflation
Bertell Ollman has described how Marx analyzed economic crisis stemming from the inability of
wage labor to buy what it produces. That is the inner contradiction specific to industrial capitalism.
As described in Volume I of Capital, employers seek to maximize profits by paying workers as little
as possible. This leads to excessive exploitation of wage labor, causing underconsumption and
a market glut.
I will focus here on the extent to which today's financial crisis is largely independent of
the industrial mode of production. As Marx noted in Volumes II and III of Capital and Theories
of Surplus Value, banking and rent extraction are in many ways adverse to industrial capitalism.
Our debate is over how to analyze the crisis the Western economies are in today. To me, it
is first and foremost a financial crisis. The banking crisis and indebtedness stems mainly from
real estate mortgage loans – and also from the kind of massive fraud that Marx found characteristic
of the high finance of his day, especially in canal and railroad financing.
So to answer the question that I was asked about whether Marx was right or wrong, Marx certainly
provided the tools needed to analyze the crises that the industrial capitalist economies have
been suffering for the past two hundred years.
But history has not worked out the way Marx expected. He expected every class to act in its
own class interest. That is the only way to reasonably project the future. The historical task
and destiny of industrial capitalism, Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, was to free society
from the "excrescences" of interest and rent (mainly land and natural resource rent, along with
monopoly rent) that industrial capitalism had inherited from medieval and even ancient society.
These useless rentier charges on production are faux frais, costs that slow the accumulation of
industrial capital. They do not stem from the production process, but are a legacy of the feudal
warlords who conquered England and other European realms to found hereditary landed aristocracies.
Financial overhead in the form of usury-capital is, to Marx, a legacy of the banking families
that built up fortunes by war lending and usury.
Marx's concept of national income differs radically from today's National Income and Product
Accounts (NIPA). Every Western economy measures "output" as Gross National Product (GNP). This
accounting format includes the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector as part of the
economy's output. It does this because it treats rent and interest as "earnings," on the same
plane as wages and industrial profits – as if privatized finance, insurance and real estate are
part of the production process. Marx treated them as external to it. Their income was not "earned,"
but was "unearned." This concept was shared by the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and
other major classical economists. Marx was simply pressing classical economics to its logical
conclusion.
The interest of the rising class of industrial capitalists was to free economies from this
legacy of feudalism, from the unnecessary faux frais of production – prices in excess of real
cost-value. The destiny of industrial capitalism, Marx believed, was to rationalize economies
by getting rid of the idle landlord and banking class – by socializing land, nationalizing natural
resources and basic infrastructure, and industrializing the banking system – to fund industrial
expansion instead of unproductive usury.
If capitalism had achieved this destiny, it would have been left primarily with the crisis
between industrial employers and workers discussed in Volume I of Capital: exploiting wage labor
to a point where labor could not buy its products. But at the same time, industrial capitalism
would be preparing the way for socialism, because industrialists needed to conquer the political
stranglehold of the landed aristocracy and the financial power of banking. It needed to promote
democratic political reform to overcome the vested interests in control of Parliaments and hence
the tax system. Labor's organization and voting power would press its own self-interest and turn
capitalism into socialism.
China has indeed exemplified this path. But it has not occurred in the West.
All three kinds of crisis that Marx described are occurring. But the West is now in a chronic
depression – what has been called Debt Deflation. Instead of banking being industrialized as Marx
expected, industry is being financialized. Instead of democracy freeing economies from land rent,
natural resource rent and monopoly rent, the rentiers have fought back and taken control of Western
governments, legal systems and tax policy. The result is that we are seeing a lapse back to the
pre-capitalist problems that Marx described in Volumes II and III of Capital and Theories of Surplus
Value.
This is where the debate between Bertell Ollman and myself centers. My focus is on finance
and rent overwhelming industrial capitalism to impose a depression stemming from debt deflation.
This over-indebtedness is making the labor/capital problem worse, by weakening labor's political
and economic position. To make matters worse, labor parties in the West no longer are fighting
over economic issues, as they were prior to World War I.
My differences with Ollman and Roemer: I focus on non-production costs
Bertell follows Marx in focusing on the production sector: hiring labor to produce products, but
trying to get as much markup as possible – while underselling rivals. This is Marx's great contribution
to the analysis of capitalism and its mode of production – employing wage labor at a profit. I
agree with this analysis.
However, my focus is on the causes of today's crisis that are independent and autonomous from
production: rentier claims for economic rent, for income without work – "empty" pricing without
value. This focus on rent and interest is where I differ from that of Ollman, and also of course
from that of Roemer. Any model of the crisis must tie together finance, real estate (and other
rent-seeking) as well as industry and employment.
The rising debt overhead can be traced mathematically, as can the symbiosis of the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector. But the interactions are too complex to be made into
a single economic "model." I am especially worried that Roemer's model might be followed here
in China, because it overlooks the most dangerous tendencies threatening China today: Western
financial practice and its pro-rentier tax policy.
China has spent the last half-century solving Marx's "Volume I" problem: the relations between
labor and its employers, recycling the economic surplus into new means of production to provide
more output, higher living standards, and most obviously, more infrastructure (roads, railways,
airlines) and housing.
But right now, it is experiencing financial problems from credit creation going into the stock
market instead of into tangible capital formation and rising consumption standards. And of course,
China has experienced a large real estate boom. Land prices are rising in China, much as they
are in the West.
What would Marx have said about this? I think that he would have warned China not to relapse
into the pre-capitalist problems of finance funding real estate – turning the rising land rent
into interest – and into permitting housing prices to rise without taxing them away.
Soviet planning failed to take the rent-of-location into account when planning where to build
housing and factories. But at least the Soviet era did not force labor or industry to pay interest
or for rising housing prices. Government banks simply created credit where it was needed to expand
the means of production, to build factories, machinery and equipment, homes and office buildings.
What worries me about the political consequences of Roemer's model is that it focuses only
on what Marx said about the production sector and employer-labor relations. It does not ask how
"endowments" come into being – or how China has changed so radically in the past generation. It
therefore neglects the danger of industrial capitalism lapsing back into a rent-and-interest economy.
And by the same token, it underplays the threat to China and other socialist economies of adopting
the West's surviving pre-feudal practices of predatory Bubble Finance (debt leveraging to raise
prices) and wealth in the form of land-rent charges.
These two dynamics – interest and rent – represent a privatization of banking and land that
rightly are public utilities. Marx expected industrial capitalism to achieve this transition.
Certainly socialist economies must achieve it!
China has no need of foreign bank credit – except to cover the cost of imports and the foreign-exchange
cost of investment in other countries. But China's foreign exchange reserves already are large
enough to be basically independent of the U.S. dollar and euro. Meanwhile, the American and European
economies are suffering from chronic debt deflation and depression that will reduce their ability
to serve as markets – for their own producers as well as for China.
Today's debt-wracked economies throw into question just what kind of crisis the capitalist
countries are experiencing. Marx's analysis provides the tools to analyze its financial, banking
and rent-extraction problems. However, most Marxists still view the 2008 financial and junk mortgage
crash as resulting ultimately from industrial employers squeezing wage labor. Finance capital
is viewed as a derivative of this exploitation, not as the autonomous dynamic Marx described.
The costs of carrying the rising debt burden (interest, amortization and penalties) deflate
the market for commodities by absorbing a growing wedge of disposable business and personal income.
This leaves less to be spent on goods and services, causing gluts that lead to crises in which
businesses scramble for money. Banks fail as bankruptcy spreads. By depleting markets, finance
capital is antithetical to the expansion of profits and tangible physical capital investment.
Despite this sterility, finance capital has achieved dominance over industrial capital. Transfers
of property from debtors to creditors – even privatizations of public assets and enterprises –
are inevitable as the growth of financial claims surpasses the ability of productive power and
earnings to keep pace. Foreclosures follow in the wake of crashes, enabling finance to take over
industrial companies and even governments.
China has largely solved the "Volume I" problem – that of expanding its internal market for
labor, investing the economic surplus in capital formation and rising living standards. It is
confronted by Western economies that have failed to solve this problem, and also have failed to
solve the "Volumes II and III" problem: finance and land rent. Yet few Western Marxists have applied
his theories to the present downturn and its rentier problem. Following Marx, they view the task
of solving this problem to be solved by industrial capitalism, starting with the bourgeois revolutions
of 1848.
Already in 1847, Marx's Poverty of Philosophy described the hatred that capitalists felt for
landlords, whose hereditary rents siphoned off income to an idle class. Upon being sent copies
of Henry George's Progress and Poverty a generation later, in 1881, he wrote to John Swinton that
taxing land rent was "a last attempt to save the capitalist regime." He dismissed the book as
falling under his 1847 critique of Proudhon: "We understand such economists as Mill, Cherbuliez,
Hilditch and others demanding that rent should be handed over to the state to serve in place of
taxes. That is a frank expression of the hatred the industrial capitalist bears towards the landed
proprietor, who seems to him a useless thing, an excrescence upon the general body of bourgeois
production."
[2]
As the program of industrial capital, the land tax movement stopped short of advocating labor's
rights and living standards. Marx criticized Proudhon and other critics of landlords by saying
that once you get rid of rent (and usurious interest by banks), you will still have the problem
of industrialists exploiting wage labor and trying to minimize their wages, drying up the market
for the goods they produce. This is to be the "final" economic problem to be solved – presumably
long after industrial capitalism has solved the rent and interest problems.
Industrial capitalism has failed to free economies from rentier interest and rent extraction
In retrospect, Marx was too optimistic about the future of industrial capitalism. As noted above,
he viewed its historical mission as being to free society from rent and usurious interest. Today's
financial system has generated an overgrowth of credit, while high rents are pricing American
labor out of world markets. Wages are stagnating, while the One Percent have monopolized the growth
in wealth and income since 1980 – and are not investing in new means of production. So we still
have the Volume II and III problems, not just a Volume I problem.
We are dealing with multiple organ failure.
Instead of funding new industrial capital formation, the stock and bond markets to transfer
ownership of companies, real estate and infrastructure already in place. About 80 percent of bank
credit is lent to buyers of real estate, inflating a mortgage bubble. Instead of taxing away the
land's rising rental and site value that John Stuart Mill described as what landlords make "in
their sleep," today's economies leave rental income "free" to be pledged to banks. The result
is that banks now play the role that landlords did in Marx's day: obtaining for themselves the
land's rising rental value. This reverses the central thrust of classical political economy by
keeping such rent away from government, along with natural resource and monopoly rents.
Industrial economies are being stifled by financial and other rentier dynamics. Rising mortgage
debt, student loans, credit card debt, automobile debt and payday loans have made workers afraid
to go on strike or even to protest working conditions. To the extent that wages do rise, they
must be paid increasingly to creditors (and now to privatized health insurance and drug monopolies),
not to buy the consumer goods they produce. Labor's debt dependency thus aggravates the "Volume
I" problem of labor's inability to purchase the products it produces. To top matters, when workers
seek to join the middle class "homeowner society" by purchasing their homes on mortgage instead
of paying rent, the price entails locking themselves into debt serfdom.
Industrial companies profit from labor not only by employing it, but by lending to customers.
General Motors made most of its profits for many years by its credit arm, GMAC (General Motors
Acceptance Corp.), as did General Electric through its financial arm. Profits made by Macy's and
other retailers on their credit card lending sometimes accounted for their entire earnings.
This privatization of rents and their transformation into a flow of interest payments (shifting
the tax burden onto wage income and corporate profits) represents a failure of industrial capitalism
to free society from the legacies of feudalism.
Marx expected industrial capitalism to act in its own self-interest by industrializing banking,
as Germany was doing along the lines that the French reformer Saint-Simon had urged. However,
industrial capitalism has failed to break free of pre-industrial usurious banking practice. And
in the sphere of tax policy, it has not shifted taxes away from land and natural resource rent.
It has inverted the classical reformers' idea of "free markets" as being free from economic rent
and predatory moneylending. The slogan now means economies free for the rentier class to extract
interest and rent.
Mode of production or mode of parasitism?
Instead of serving industrial capitalism, today's financial sector is bleeding it to death.
Instead of seeking profits by employing labor to produce goods at a markup, it doesn't even want
to hire labor or engage in the process of production and develop new markets. The epitome of this
postindustrial economics is Enron: its' managers wanted no capital at all – no employment, only
traders at a desk (and crooked accountants).
Today's characteristic mode of accumulating wealth is more by financial than industrial means:
riding the wave of debt-financed asset-price inflation to reap "capital" gains. This seemed unlikely
in Marx's era of the gold standard. Yet today, most academic Marxists still concentrate on his
"Volume I" crisis, neglecting finance capitalism's failure to free economies from the rentier
dynamics surviving from European feudalism and the colonial lands conquered by Europe.
Marxists who went into Wall Street have learned their lessons from Volumes II and III. But
academic Marxism has not focused on the FIRE sector – Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. It is
as if interest and rent extraction are secondary problems to the dynamics of wage labor.
The great question today is whether post-feudal rentier capitalism will stifle industrial capitalism
instead of serving it. The aim of finance is not merely to exploit labor, but to conquer and appropriate
industry, real estate and government. The result is a financial oligarchy, neither industrial
capitalism nor a tendency to evolve into socialism.
Marx's optimism that industrial capital would subordinate finance to serve its own needs
Having provided a compendium of historical citations describing how parasitic "usury capital"
multiplied at compound interest, Marx announced in an optimistic Darwinian tone that the destiny
of industrial capitalism was to mobilize finance capital to fund its economic expansion, rendering
usury an obsolete vestige of the "ancient" mode of production. It is as if "in the course of its
evolution, industrial capital must therefore subjugate these forms and transform them into derived
or special functions of itself." Finance capital would be subordinated to the dynamics of industrial
capital rather than growing to dominate it. "Where capitalist production has developed all its
manifold forms and has become the dominant mode of production," Marx concluded his draft notes
for Theories of Surplus Value, "interest-bearing capital is dominated by industrial capital, and
commercial capital becomes merely a form of industrial capital, derived from the circulation process."
[3]
Marx expected economies to act in their long-term interest to increase the means of production
and avoid unproductive rentier income, underconsumption and debt deflation. Believing that every
mode of production was shaped by the technological, political and social needs of economies to
advance, he expected banking and finance to become subordinate to these dynamics. "There is no
doubt," he wrote, "that the credit system will serve as a powerful lever during the transition
from the capitalist mode of production to the production by means of associated labor; but only
as one element in connection with other great organic revolutions of the mode of production itself."
[4]
The financial problem would take care of itself as industrial capitalism mobilized savings
productively, subordinating finance capital to serve its needs. This already was happening in
Germany and France.
It seemed that the banking system's role as allocator of credit would pave the way for a socialist
organization of economies. Marx endorsed free trade on the ground that industrial capitalism would
transform and modernize the world's backward countries. Instead, it has brought Western rentier
finance and privatization of the land and natural resources, and even brought the right to use
these country's currencies and financial systems as casinos. And in the advanced creditor nations,
failure of the U.S. and European economies to recover from their 2008 financial crisis stems from
leaving in place the reckless "junk mortgage" debts, whose carrying charges are absorbing income.
Banks were saved instead of industrial economies, whose debts were left in place.
Irving Fisher coined the term debt deflation in 1933. He described it as occurring when debt
service (interest and amortization) to pay banks and bondholders diverts income from being spent
on consumer goods and new business investment.
[5] Governments use their tax revenues to pay bondholders, cutting back public spending and
infrastructure investment, education, health and other social welfare.
No observer of Marx's epoch was so pessimistic as to expect finance capital to overpower industrial
capitalism, engulfing economies as the world is seeing today. Discussing the 1857 financial crisis,
Marx showed how unthinkable anything like the 2008-09 Bush-Obama bailout of financial speculators
seemed to be in his day. "The entire artificial system of forced expansion of the reproduction
process cannot, of course, be remedied by having some bank, like the Bank of England, give to
all the swindlers the deficient capital by means of its paper and having it buy up all the depreciated
commodities at their old nominal values."
[6]
Marx wrote this reductio ad absurdum not dreaming that it would become the Federal
Reserve's policy in autumn 2008. The U.S. Treasury paid off all of A.I.G.'s gambles and other
counterparty "casino capitalist" losses at taxpayer expense, followed by the Federal Reserve buying
junk mortgage packages at par.
Socialist policy regarding financial and tax reform
Marx described the historical destiny of industrial capitalism as being to free economies from
unproductive and predatory finance – from speculation, fraud and a diversion of income to pay
interest without funding new means of production. On this logic, it should be the destiny of socialist
economies to treat bank credit creation as a public function, to be used for public purposes –
to increase prosperity and the means of production to give populations a better life. Socialist
nations have freed their economies from the internal contradictions of industrial capitalism that
stifle wage labor.
China has solved the "Volume I" problem. But it still must deal with the West's unsolved "Volume
II and III" problem of privatized finance, land rent and natural resource rent. Western economies
seek to extend these neoliberal practices to use finance as a lever to pry away the economic surplus,
to finance the transfer of property at interest, and to turn profits, rent, wages and other income
into interest.
The failure to socialize banking (or even to complete its industrialization) has become
the most glaring economic tragedy of Western industrial capitalism. It became the tragedy of post-Soviet
Russia after 1991, letting its natural resources and industrial economy be financialized while
failing to tax land and natural resource rent. The commanding heights were sold to domestic oligarchs
and Western investors buying on credit with their own banks or in association with Western banks.
This bank credit was simply created on computer keyboards. Such credit creation should be a public
utility, but it has broken free from public regulation in the West. That credit is now reaching
out to China and the post-Soviet economies as a means of appropriating their resources.
The eurozone seems incapable of saving itself from debt deflation, and the United States and
Britain likewise are limping along as they de-industrialize. That is what leads them to hope that
perhaps socialist China can save them – as long as it remains free of the financial disease. asset
stripping and debt deflation. Western neoliberal economists claim that this financialization of
erstwhile industrial capitalism is "progress," and even the end of history. Yet having watched
China grow while their economies have remained stagnant since 2008 (except for the One Percent),
their hope is that socialist China's market can save their financialized economies driven too
deeply into debt to recover on their own.
Note: Marx described productive capital investment by the formula M–C–M´, signifying money
(M) invested to produce commodities (C) that sell for yet more money (M´). But the growth of "usury
capital" – government bond financing for war deficits, and consumer lending (mortgages, personal
loans and credit card debt) – consist of the disembodied M–M´, making money simply from money
in a sterile operation.
Footnotes
[1] In Volume III of Capital (ch. xxx; Chicago 1909: p. 461) and Volume III of Theories of
Surplus Value.
[2] Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy [1847] (Moscow, Progress Publishers, n.d.): 155.
[3] Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value III: 468
[4] Capital III (Chicago, 1905), p. 713.
[5] See Irving Fisher, "The Debt-Deflation Theory of the Great Depression," Econometrica (1933),
p. 342. Online at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf. He used the term to
refer to bankruptcies wiped out bank credit and spending power, and hence the ability of economies
to invest and hire new workers. I provide a technical discussion in Killing the Host (ISLET 2015),
chapter 11, and "Saving, Asset-Price Inflation and Debt Deflation," in The Bubble and Beyond,
ch. 11 (ISLET 2012), pp. 297-319.
[6] Capital III (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1958), p. 479.
"... The other is that the centre-left (aka 'soft" neoliberals) took economic growth largely for granted. New Labour believed that if it could provide stable macroeconomic policy and an attractive location for investment then growth would follow. That might have been the case in the 90s. But it isn't true in our new era of secular stagnation. We need supply-side socialism. ..."
"... Obama averaged 1.7 percent annual growth over 8 years after an epic financial crisis. ..."
"... As Dillow points out, economic stagnation causes politics to get meaner. ..."
Good post by Chris Dillow who comes out of the closet and
names the opposition (foe?) of neoliberalism which is
socialism.
"The victories of Trump and Brexit, and rise of
the National Front in France and AfD in Germany all vindicate
Ben Friedman's point that economic stagnation makes people
meaner. It causes a rise in right-wing extremism, not
leftism.
...
The other is that the centre-left (aka 'soft"
neoliberals) took economic growth largely for granted.
New Labour believed that if it could provide stable
macroeconomic policy and an attractive location for
investment then growth would follow. That might have been the
case in the 90s. But it isn't true in our new era of secular
stagnation. We need supply-side socialism.
"
This is what Krugman is missing with his discussion of
being near full employment with Trump planning fiscal
expansion. This is what the Fed is missing with its
determination to "normalize."
(I hate to be divisive and criticize Krugman.)
Maybe he's right and we won't have another major financial
crisis in a while. We'll move off of the ZLB as a mild
recession is followed by more growth and above target
inflation. It's possible. I hope he's right. But the history
is one of a shampoo economy: bubble, bust, repeat where
growth after the bust is too slow and recoveries are too
shallow. And labor gets the shaft.
Obama averaged 1.7 percent annual growth over 8 years
after an epic financial crisis.
This what we'd be
talking about if not for President Insane Clown Posse and his
Juggalos.
(It wasn't all Obama's fault of course, but in a
way it doesn't matter whose fault it was.
As Dillow
points out, economic stagnation causes politics to get
meaner.
)
"Bon courage, Benoît! As Ali said:
"Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not
a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential.
Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."
There is a
stronger tradition of social democracy in the EU that could
coalesce around a candidate such as Benoît Hamon than there
is here in the US. FDR was a long time ago and still rather
conservative by post WWII European standards until
Thatcherism caught on there. You will note how much more
support that Sanders got from millennials than from our
generations. It will take more time here.
Good point, but in recent years it has been the populist
right who has really been the beneficiary in the U.S. and
Europe, with their scapegoating of globalization and
immigrants.
"If the national Democratic Party had more cultural appeal
to working-class whites, they might have been able to stop
the bleeding enough to hold states like Pennsylvania,
Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin or North Carolina."
Yeah you won't cultural appeal but not so much that you
abandon your principles. Calling them deplorable doesn't
help.
I feel the Democrats need to better appeal to them more on
the economic front. Instead of giving speeches at Goldman
Sachs functions, campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Instead of an infrastructure proposal of $275 billion over
5 years, go big like Bernie or the Senate Democrats with $1
trillion over 10 years. Trump went big with his rhetoric.
We'll see if he delivers anything.
"The white working class, even outside the south, has been
moving away from the Democratic Party for 20 years. Check out
the graph."
Agreed. I travel (a lot) and every hotel I stay
at has Faux News in the lobby (a large percentage don't even
have MSNBC as part of the cable in the room upstairs, every
restaurant/bar I go to has Faux News on. There are no liberal
talk radio programs (outside of Sirius), so every plumber,
sales guy driving to their next client, taxi driver, et al,
only hear a right wing message. Anyone who disagrees with
them is part of the "lame-stream media".
Undeniably, they control the messaging.
This is why they believe the economy was still bad last
qtr, that Democrats raised taxes, etc.
Of all the ways Reagan ruined our country, I'd argue the
worst thing he did (besides tripling the debt) was getting
rid of the "fairness doctrine" which required presenting both
sides of a discussion equally. This gave rise (IMO) to the
hate radio and the alt-fact universe we now live in.
And agreed re Fox news
too. When it is on, I always ask the desk clerk to change to
something nonpolitical like the Weather Channel or ESPN. I've
never had them refusse. On Inauguration Day I had to do that
at a sports bar! The bartender actually thanked me.
"The white working class, even outside the south, has been
moving away from the Democratic Party for 20 years."
Thanks
to Bill Clinton and the Democratic shift away from class
based economic programs to an exclusive focus on identity
issues. This is not an either/or choice, as Dillow points out
in his piece, and the Democrats did both successfully for
about 20 years in the 19560s-1970s. The DLC Democrats, like
the Clintons, abandoned economic justice/labor issues in the
mid-70s in order to attract more wealthy donors and overcome
the overwhelming fundraising advantage of the Republicans at
that time.
I think move to the right might continue for some time.
Clinton Democrats betrayal of working class give far right a
huge boost, to say nothing about paving way to Caesarism and
discarding the Democratic governance like used shoe box.
From comments:
"what is termed the Right is pretty much what would have
been [neoliberal] centre leftism not that long ago.
In practical terms there is nothing between the
governments of Cameron or May vs those of Blair.
"...And the likely failures of Brexit and Trumponomics might
well cause some kind of backlash.
There is, however, a more
pessimistic reading.
For one thing, we might not see the sort of backlash we
want..."
[That is what we have gotten already, backlash against
center left neoliberal mediocrity. Still with no other game
in town and a POTUS bound and determined to motivate liberal
voters any way that he can then a return to a center left
voting public and the policies that it will tolerate is not
so unlikely.]
The center left will still need to do something about low
wages, shitty jobs, and the high cost of higher education if
it wants to hang around for very long though.
"... While this act was sweeping and lacked finesse, operationally clumsy to say the least, the reaction to it was just about as dramatic, including tears. Well, that's politics in the 21st century. And I am sure we will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few years. ..."
While this act was sweeping and lacked finesse, operationally clumsy to say the least, the
reaction to it was just about as dramatic, including tears. Well, that's politics in the 21st
century. And I am sure we will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few years.
We are going to learn more about ourselves than we may have expected. There is nothing new in this;
it is the particular experience of about every other generation and their own 'rendezvous with
destiny.' How can we be content when the choices are between the 'lesser of two evils.' They are
both evil, and many including me are not happy about it- but it is what it is.
mulp said...
January 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Where are all the "uncertainty" Chicken Littles that were
running around during the Obama administration screaming
about all the job killing regulations mandating paying
lots more workers causing uncertainty and no job creation?
Now we have Trump uncertainty of promising job killing
deregulation in some places that will be clogged up in
court or uncertain times, plus the uncertainty of random
irrational new job killing regulations of obstacles to
international business.
Trump campaigned on unpredictable chaos to create
uncertainty.
Is it ironic that Trump is being more Obama, and
Carter, than Obama or Carter, and his supporters praise
that?
I note with amusement that Trump defenders cite their
two worst presidents ever as providing the template and
justification for Trump's executive actions. Carter and
Obama were the worst at not keeping America safe, so Trump
is doing immigration bans based on the failed policies of
Carter and Obama, polices that failed to keep America
safe. And Trump defenders point to the Bernardino shooter
coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as the justification
for banning immigrants from seven nations that are NOT
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. After all, Obama did not
include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in his failed policy, so
Trump is not including them in his correction because
failed Obama excluded them.
Progressives are just so dumb.
How can they let Republicans justify policies of Obama
based on Trump or Republicans doing them?
They should be emphasizing how much Trump and
Republicans are now advocating and doing the "failed"
policies of Obama.
Peter K. said in reply to mulp...
They should treat Trump like a regular Republican whose
trickle-down economic ideas doesn't work and has never
worked. Trump promised his voters something different.
Clinton did win the popular vote.
Reply
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:33 AM
mulp said in reply to Peter K....
But she lost the Rust Belt which Obama tried to address by
failed stimulus spending on infrastructure which Clinton
doubled down on.
Trump alone can fix things because
doubling down on Clinton's doubling down on Obama's failed
infrastructure spending will work because he is a
Republican, not a radical leftist socialist Democrat doing
it.
Why, because Trump will spending a trillion dollars on
infrastructure but it won't cost a penny because he is
using tax cuts and the free market, and the free in free
market means free trillion dollar infrastructure.
Progressives are not liberals because they adopted
voodoo free lunch economics after the 80s. Obama was a
liberal who understands TANSTAAFL and called for paying
for things. Trump is the anti-Obama in that where Obama
policy and action cost, Trump can do exactly the same for
free, at no cost to anyone. Bernie was more like Trump in
promising trillions in spending at no cost, for free.
"They should treat Trump like a regular Republican
whose trickle-down economic ideas doesn't work and has
never worked." Which Republicans in the "they" believe
free lunch economics don't work? Which conservatives in
the "they" believe voodoo economics don't work?
"They" criticize/defend policies based on the identity
of the policy makers, not based on logic, fact, reason.
Republicans/conservatives justifying policies based on
Obama doing them or advocating them is just so absurd, and
so easy to eviscerate. "Are you saying Obama's policies
and selections of nations as sources of terrorist threats
were the best at keeping America safe?" "If Obama failed
to keep America safe because he picked the wrong nations,
why are you using Obama's wrong list of nations?"
Reply
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 11:15 AM
anne said...
Important and finely written analysis. Judging from the
politically adamant president and close advisers, the
openings for Fed executives from the beginning, there is a
significant danger of the independence of the Federal
Reserve being compromised.
Reply
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:43 AM
"... In the declining years of the British empire, some of its politicians flattered themselves that they could be "Greeks to their Romans" - providing wise and experienced counsel to the new American imperium. ..."
"... But the Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington - and the British are having to smile and clap as he sets fires and reaches for his fiddle. ..."
"... imo, the risk of the USA becoming an oppressive authoritarian state (as opposed to an oligarchy with a veneer of democracy) is being willfully ignored by the the serfs, the bourgeoisie (e.g. EV commentators), and our oligarch lords and masters. ..."
"... spectacle of obvious lies being peddled by the White House is a tragedy for US democracy. ..."
"... While Trump immigration act was sweeping and lacked finesse that just is not important. This was what people who elected him expected from him. Be prepared for more. Trump administration can allow to be operationally clumsy the first 100 days, to say the least. Breaking things is a part of politics as Bismarck once noted: "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood." ..."
"... I am still waiting for neocons purge in the State Department and departure of Victoria Nuland. And I hope we will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few years. ..."
"... So those neoliberals who shed crocodile tears about Big, Bad Trump now should better be prepared :-) About every other generation has its own 'rendezvous with destiny.' Remember Great Depression, WWII, Vietnam War... ..."
"... "We are going to learn more about ourselves than we may have expected. There is nothing new in this; it is the particular experience of about every other generation and their own 'rendezvous with destiny.' How can we be content when the choices are between the 'lesser of two evils.' They are both evil, and many including me are not happy about it- but it is what it is." ..."
Britain cannot look to the US for support after its
divorce from the EU
Gideon Rachman
For the most ardent supporters of Brexit, the election of
Donald Trump was a mixture of vindication and salvation. The
president of the US, no less, thinks it is a great idea for
Britain to leave the EU. Even better, he seems to offer an
exciting escape route. The UK can leap off the rotting raft
of the EU and on to the gleaming battleship HMS Anglosphere.
It is an alluring vision. Unfortunately, it is precisely
wrong. The election of Mr Trump has transformed Brexit from a
risky decision into a straightforward disaster. For the past
40 years, Britain has had two central pillars to its foreign
policy: membership of the EU and a "special relationship"
with the US.
The decision to exit the EU leaves Britain much more
dependent on the US, just at a time when America has elected
an unstable president opposed to most of the central
propositions on which UK foreign policy is based.
During the brief trip to Washington by Theresa May, the UK
prime minister, this unpleasant truth was partly obscured by
trivia and trade. Mr Trump's decision to return the bust of
Winston Churchill to the Oval Office was greeted with slavish
delight by Brexiters. More substantively, the Trump
administration made it clear that it is minded to do a trade
deal with the UK just as soon as Britain's EU divorce comes
through.
... ... ...
Britain could defend free-trade far more effectively with
the EU's bulk behind it - and could also start to explore the
possibilities for more EU defence co-operation. As it is,
Britain has been thrown into the arms of an American
president that the UK's foreign secretary has called a
madman.
In the declining years of the British empire, some of
its politicians flattered themselves that they could be
"Greeks to their Romans" - providing wise and experienced
counsel to the new American imperium.
But the Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington
- and the British are having to smile and clap as he sets
fires and reaches for his fiddle.
imo, the risk of the USA becoming an oppressive
authoritarian state (as opposed to an oligarchy with a veneer
of democracy) is being willfully ignored by the the serfs,
the bourgeoisie (e.g. EV commentators), and our oligarch
lords and masters.
You sound like Bernie
Sanders. As Bernie said if the Republicans become
increasingly successful in suppressing and limiting the vote,
we could be in trouble. And/or if they continue to corrupt
and strip away campaign finance rules like with Citizens
United. But the demographics are against them.
Falsehood cannot be the basis for US foreign policy
JANUARY 23, 2017 by: Gideon Rachman
The man from the BBC was laughing as he reported the White
House's false claims about the size of the crowd at Donald
Trump's inauguration. He should have been crying. What we are
witnessing is the destruction of the credibility of the
American government.
This
spectacle of obvious lies being peddled by the
White House is a tragedy for US democracy.
But the rest
of the world - and, in particular, America's allies - should
also be frightened. A Trump administration that is addicted
to the "big lie" has very dangerous implications for global
security.
Serious issue: true, his credibility is utterly gone in the
reality-based community, but seriously, what about the
general populace at large?
Remember the Reagan and Bush Jr.
Administrations. The presidents themselves were as oblivious
to reality as Trump appears to be, yet their credibility
wasn't totally demolished to a big portion of the populace.
Why should Trump fail where others have succeeded?
There's also mainstream media credibility, VSP
credibility, and (yes) Clinton credibility.
After all, there's the "credibility" of the Ruskie hacking
of our election.
Paul Krugman's credibility took a hit for me sometime
around a year ago, and as long as he keeps writing things
like the "Trump-Putin" regime, it's staying down.
Krugman's credibility took a bid hit from me when he started
attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters during the
primary (which reminded me of the way he treated Obama in
2008).
Just go through his columns and blog posts on the
subject and it's amazing how brazenly awful they are.
Just me noticing, for myself, what bond investors
collectively are thinking about inflation over the coming 5
years, and thinking that inflation will be a little above 2%
or subdued.
There are two other sides to the credibility/trust issue.
Domestically there is the question of business confidence in
a cultural landscape which has shattered. Hatred and bigotry
is up; there is increasing likelihood of unrest and violence.
Business my be loathe to expand in such an unsettled,
uncertain landscape. And it may be this way for a while.
Internationally there is the question of whether foreign
consumers will find U.S. products to be attractive, and
untainted by ugly environmental and labor concerns -- and
inexpensive on world markets, if there is protectionism and
retaliation.
Trump is making the cardinal mistake of
believing that the U.S. is the indispensable nation, that
people will be forced to deal with him, that he can throw his
weight around.
While Trump immigration act was sweeping and lacked finesse
that just is not important. This was what people who elected
him expected from him. Be prepared for more.
Trump administration can allow to be operationally clumsy
the first 100 days, to say the least. Breaking things is a
part of politics as Bismarck once noted: "The great questions
of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and
majority decisions but by iron and blood."
I am still waiting for neocons purge in the State
Department and departure of Victoria Nuland. And I hope we
will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few
years.
So those neoliberals who shed crocodile tears about Big,
Bad Trump now should better be prepared :-) About every other generation has its own 'rendezvous with
destiny.' Remember Great Depression, WWII, Vietnam War...
== quote ==
"We are going to learn more about ourselves than we may
have expected. There is nothing new in this; it is the
particular experience of about every other generation and
their own 'rendezvous with destiny.' How can we be content
when the choices are between the 'lesser of two evils.' They
are both evil, and many including me are not happy about it-
but it is what it is."
The State Department has 7,600 Foreign Service officers and
11,000 civil servants.
libezkova :
"Administration officials have drafted a new executive order
aimed at overhauling, among other things, the H-1B work-visa
program that technology companies have long relied on to
bring top foreign engineering talent to their U.S.-based
locations" [USA Today]. "The order is aimed at ensuring that
"officials administer our laws in a manner that prioritizes
the interests of American workers and - to the maximum degree
possible - the jobs, wages and well-being of those workers,"
according to a copy of the document provided to USA TODAY."
"A market state, in contrast to the nation-state's focus on broad
economic prosperity and cultural integration, focuses on providing
opportunity to the individual. Finally, and most importantly to me, Trump
isn't dismantling neoliberalism to return to the old nation-state. He's
building, with the help of social networking, a new model of governance for
the US.
"... Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting. A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked questions. ..."
"... - Eduardo Galeano ..."
"... Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." ..."
"... One way of understanding Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. ..."
"... As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital ..."
"... As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy ..."
"... Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one's individual needs and self-interests. ..."
"... The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena. ..."
"... They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military. ..."
"... dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies, and material goods to the machineries of disposability. ..."
"... Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering, cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility, and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2). ..."
"... In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it. ..."
"... What is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... London Review of Books ..."
"... This is not a diary ..."
"... Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment ..."
"... Against the terror of neoliberalism ..."
"... Against the violence of organized forgetting: beyond America's disimagination machine ..."
"... Debt: The First 5,000 Years ..."
"... The democracy project: a history, a crisis, a movement ..."
"... 5th assessment report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change ..."
"... Unlearning With Hannah Arendt ..."
"... Agnonistics: thinking the world politically ..."
Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with
an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting.
A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked
questions.
- Eduardo Galeano
Neoliberalism's Assault on Democracy
Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of
the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." He goes on to say that
"We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way
of imagining the end of the world" (Jameson 2003). One way of understanding
Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which
the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized,
there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting
that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage,
and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability,
is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more
recent scientific reports on the threat of ecological disaster from researchers
at the University of Washington, NASA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reinforce this dystopian possibility. [1]
To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the
Public Intellectual Project, click
here.
As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of
a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating
the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux
2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes "the deregulation of finance,
privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare
programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws" (Yates
2013). As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market
rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy,
consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational
belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for
structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities,
subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded
in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of
ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics
and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization
of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and
public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade
in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of
financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state
and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural
apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves
as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and
supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism
and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further
one's individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect,
and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization
and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult
to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations.
As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught
of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly
weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear,
and the increasing use of state violence. One consequence is that it has become
more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the
widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers,
and other segments of society - now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes
which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the
ruling economic and political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices
heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree
to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing
what Chantal Mouffe calls "a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing
societies" under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This
is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students,
have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States,
and England.
The Rise of Disposable Youth
What is particularly distinctive about the current historical conjuncture
is the way in which young people, particularly low-income and poor minority
youth across the globe, have been increasingly denied any place in an already
weakened social order and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central
to how a number of countries across the globe define their future. The plight
of youth as disposable populations is evident in the fact that millions of them
in countries such as England, Greece, and the United States have been unemployed
and denied long term benefits. The unemployment rate for young people in many
countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50
per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find
work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States,
young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food
stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing
surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living
far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a
rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the
political arena.
This is the first generation, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which
the "plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation." (Bauman
2012a; 2012b; 2012c) He rightly insists that today's youth have been "cast in
a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory
or permanent" (Bauman 2004:76). Youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged
place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal
notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence
of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak,
and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed
next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out
pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce
a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military.
Students, in particular, found themselves in a world in which unrealized aspirations
have been replaced by dashed hopes and a world of onerous debt (Fraser 2013;
On the history of debt, see Graeber 2012).
The Revival of the Radical Imagination
Within the various regimes of neoliberalism that have emerged particularly
in North since the late 1970s, the ethical grammars that drew attention to the
violence and suffering withered or, as in the United States, seemed to disappear
altogether, while dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies,
and material goods to the machineries of disposability. The fear of losing everything,
the horror of an engulfing and crippling precarity, the quest to merely survive,
the rise of the punishing state and police violence, along with the impending
reality of social and civil death, became a way of life for the 99 percent in
the United States and other countries. Under such circumstances, youth were
no longer the place where society reveals its dreams, but increasingly hid its
nightmares. Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones
of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering,
cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility,
and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2).
In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance
and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the
possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it.
Such movements produced a new understanding of politics based on horizontal
forms of collaboration and political participation. In doing so, they resurrected
revitalized and much needed questions about class power, inequality, financial
corruption, and the shredding of the democratic process. They also explored
as well as what it meant to create new communities of mutual support, democratic
modes of exchange and governance, and public spheres in which critical dialogue
and exchanges could take place (For an excellent analysis on neoliberal-induced
financial corruption, see Anderson 2004).
A wave of youth protests starting in 2010 in Tunisia, and spreading across
the globe to the United States and Europe, eventually posed a direct challenge
to neoliberal modes of domination and the corruption of politics, if not democracy
itself (Hardt & Negri 2012). The legitimating, debilitating, and depoliticizing
notion that politics could only be challenged within established methods of
reform and existing relations of power was rejected outright by students and
other young people across the globe. For a couple of years, young people transformed
basic assumptions about what politics is and how the radical imagination could
be mobilized to challenge the basic beliefs of neoliberalism and other modes
of authoritarianism. They also challenged dominant discourses ranging from deficit
reduction and taxing the poor to important issues that included poverty, joblessness,
the growing unmanageable levels of student debt, and the massive spread of corporate
corruption. As Jonathan Schell argued, youth across the globe were enormously
successfully in unleashing "a new spirit of action", an expression of outrage
fueled less by policy demands than by a cry of collective moral and political
indignation whose message was
'Enough!' to a corrupt political, economic and media establishment that
hijacked the world's wealth for itself… sabotaging the rule of law, waging
interminable savage and futile wars, plundering the world's finite resources,
and lying about all this to the public [while] threatening Earth's life
forms into the bargain. (Schell 2011)
Yet, some theorists have recently argued that little has changed since 2011,
in spite of this expression of collective rage and accompanying demonstrations
by youth groups across the globe.
The Collapse or Reconfiguration of Youthful Protests?
Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Politaki,
writing in The Guardian, argue that as the "economic and social
disaster unfolded in 2012 and 2013", youth in Greece, France, Portugal, and
Spain have largely been absent from "politics, social movements and even from
the spontaneous social networks that have dealt with the worst of the catastrophe"
(Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014). Yet, at the same time, they insist that more and
more young people have been "attracted to nihilistic ends of the political spectrum,
including varieties of anarchism and fascism" (Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014).
This indicates that young people have hardly been absent from politics. On the
contrary, those youth moving to the right are being mobilized around needs that
simply promise the swindle of fulfillment. This does not suggest youth are becoming
invisible. On the contrary, the move on the part of students and others to the
right implies that the economic crisis has not been matched by a crisis of ideas,
one that would propel young people towards left political parties or social
formations that effectively articulate a critical understanding of the present
economic and political crisis. Missing here is also a strategy to create
and sustain a radical democratic political movement that avoids cooptation of
the prevailing economic and political systems of oppression now dominating the
United States, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, France, and England, among other countries.
This critique of youthful protesters as a suspect generation is repeated
in greater detail by Andrew R. Myers in Student Pulse (Myers 2012).
He argues that deteriorating economic and educational conditions for youth all
over Europe have created not only a profound sense of political pessimism among
young people, but also a dangerous, if not cynical, distrust towards established
politics. Regrettably, Myers seems less concerned about the conditions that
have written young people out of jobs, a decent education, imposed a massive
debt on them, and offers up a future of despair and dashed hopes than the alleged
unfortunate willingness of young people to turn their back on traditional parties.
Myers argues rightly that globalization is the enemy of young people and is
undermining democracy, but he wrongly insists that traditional social democratic
parties are the only vehicles and hope left for real reform. As such, Myers
argues that youth who exhibit distrust towards established governments and call
for the construction of another world symbolize political defeat, if not cynicism
itself. Unfortunately, with his lament about how little youth are protesting
today and about their lack of engagement in the traditional forms of politics,
he endorses, in the end, a defense of those left/liberal parties that embrace
social democracy and the new labor policies of centrist-left coalitions. His
rebuke borders on bad faith, given his criticism of young people for not engaging
in electoral politics and joining with unions, both of which, for many youth,
rightfully represent elements of a reformist politics they reject.
It is ironic that both of these critiques of the alleged passivity of youth
and the failure of their politics have nothing to say about the generations
of adults that failed these young people - that is, what disappears in these
narratives is the fact that an older generation accepted the "realization that
one generation no longer holds out a hand to the next" (Knott 2011:ix). What
is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and
dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who
shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments
and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and
willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization.
In fact, what was distinctive about the protesting youth across the globe
was their rejection to the injustices of neoliberalism and their attempts to
redefine the meaning of politics and democracy, while fashioning new forms of
revolt (Hardt & Negri 2012; Graeber 2013). Among their many criticisms, youthful
protesters argued vehemently that traditional social democratic, left, and liberal
parties suffered from an "extremism of the center" that made them complicitous
with the corporate and ruling political elites, resulting in their embrace of
the inequities of a form of casino capitalism which assumed that the market
should govern the entirety of social life, not just the economic realm (Hardt
& Negri 2012:88).
Henry A.
Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship
in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a
Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent
books include: Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013),
America's Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013)
Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014), and The Violence
of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America's Disimagination Machine (City
Lights, 2014). The Toronto Star named Henry Giroux one of the twelve Canadians
changing the way we think! Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors.
His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.
"... The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, ..."
"... Benedict wrote his famous Rule , which became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture, and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms ..."
The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who
cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the
maintenance of American empire,and who therefore are keen to construct
local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire
represents.
Put less grandly, the Benedict Option - or "Ben Op" - is an umbrella term
for Christians who accept MacIntyre's critique of modernity, and who also recognize
that forming Christians who live out Christianity according to Great Tradition
requires embedding within communities and institutions dedicated to that formation.
... ... ...
For one, the it awakened many small-o orthodox Christians to something that
ought to have been clear to them a long, long time ago: the West is truly a
post-Christian civilization, and we had better come up with new ways of living
if we are going to hold on to the faith in this new dark age. The reason gay
rights were so quickly embraced by the American public is because the same public
had already jettisoned traditional Christian teaching on the meaning of sex,
of marriage, and even a Christian anthropology. Same-sex marriage is only the
fulfillment of a radical change that had already taken place in Western culture.
... ... ...
Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480-537) was an educated young Christian who left
Rome, the city of the recently fallen Empire, out of disgust with its decadence.
He went south, into the forest near Subiaco, to live as a hermit and to pray.
Eventually, he gathered around him some like-minded men, and formed monasteries.
Benedict wrote his famous
Rule , which
became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the
Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture,
and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms. As Cardinal
Newman wrote:
St Benedict found the world, physical and social, in ruins, and his mission
was to restore it in the way not of science, but of nature, not as if setting
about to do it [the caveat], not professing to do it by any set time, or
by any rare specific, or by any series of strokes, but so quietly, patiently,
gradually, that often till the work was done, it was not known to be doing.
It was a restoration rather than a visitation, correction or conversion.
The new work which he helped to create was a growth rather than a
structure . Silent men were observed about the country, or discovered
in the forest, digging, clearing and building; and other silent men, not
seen, were sitting in the cold cloister, tiring their eyes and keeping their
attention on the stretch, while they painfully copied and recopied the manuscripts
which they had saved.
There was no one who contended or cried out, or drew attention to what
was going on, but by degrees the woody swamp became a hermitage, a religious
house, a farm, an abbey, a village, a seminary, a school of learning and
a city.
... ... ...
Here are some basic Benedictine principles that we might think of as tools
for living the Christian life:
1. Order. Benedict described the monastery as
a "school for the service of the Lord." The entire way of life of the monastic
community was ordered by this telos , or end. The primary purpose
of Christian community life is to form Christians. The Benedict Option must
teach us to make every other goal in our lives secondary to serving God.
Christianity is not simply a "worldview" or an add-on to our lives, as it
is in modernity; it must be our lives, or it is something less than
Christianity.
2. Prayer and work. Life as a Christian requires
both contemplation and action. Both depend on the other. There is a reason
Jesus retired to the desert after teaching the crowds. Work is as sacred
as prayer. Ordinary life can and should be hallowed.
3. Stability. The Rule ordinarily requires monks
to stay put in the monastery where they professed their vows. The idea is
that moving around constantly, following our own desires, prevents us from
becoming faithful to our calling. True, we must be prepared to follow God's
calling, even if He leads us away from home. But the far greater challenge
for us in the 21st century is learning how to stay put - literally and metaphorically
- and to bind ourselves to a place, a tradition, a people. Only within the
limits of stability can we find true freedom.
4. Community. It really does take a village to
raise a child. That is, we learn who we are and who we are called to be
in large part through our communities and their institutions. We Americans
have to unlearn some of the ways of individualism that we absorb uncritically,
and must relearn the craft of community living.
Not every community is equally capable of forming Christians. Communities
must have boundaries, and must build these metaphorical walls because, as
the New Monastic pioneer Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove writes, "we cannot become
the gift to others we are called to be until we embrace the limits that
are necessary to our vocation." In other words, we must withdraw behind
some communal boundaries not for the sake of our own purity, but so we can
first become who God wants us to be, precisely for the sake of the
world. Beliefs and practices that are antithetical to achieving the community's
telos must be excluded.
5. Hospitality. That said, we must be open to
outsiders, and receive them "as Christ," according to the Rule. For Benedictine
monks, this had a specific meaning, with regard to welcoming visitors to
the monastery. For modern laypersons, this will likely have to do with their
relationship to people outside the community. The Benedictines are instructed
to welcome outsiders so long as they don't interrupt communal life. It should
be that way with us, too. We should always be open to others, in charity,
to share what we have with them, including our faith.
6. Balance. The Rule of St. Benedict is marked
by a sense of balance, of common sense. As Ben Oppers experiment with building
and/or reforming communities and institutions in a more intentional way,
we must be vigilant against the temptations to fall intorigid legalism,
cults of personality, and other distortions that have been the ruin of intentional
communities. There must be workable forms of accountability for leadership,
and the cultivation of an anti-utopian sensibility among the faithful. A
community that is too lax will dissolve, or at least be ineffective, but
one that is too strict will also produce disorder. A Benedict Option community
must be joyful and confident, not dour and fearful.
Can you point to any contemporary examples of Ben Op communities?
Yes. There is a Catholic agrarian community around
Our Lady of Clear
Creek Abbey in eastern Oklahoma. The lay community gathered around
St. John Orthodox cathedral
in Eagle River, Alaska, is another.
Trinity Presbyterian
Church in Charlottesville, Virginia , is working towards incorporating a
version of the Rule of St. Benedict within its congregational life. Rutba House,
a New Monastic community in Durham, North Carolina, and its
School for Conversion
, is still another. I recently met a couple in Waco, Texas - Baylor philosophy
professor
Scott Moore and his wife Andrea - who bought a property near Crawford, Texas,
and who are rehabilitating it into a family home and a Christian retreat called
Benedict Farm. There is the
Bruderhof.
I am certain that there is no such thing as a perfect Ben Op community, and
that each and every one of them will have struggled with similar problems. In
working on the Benedict Option book, I intend to visit as many of these communities
as I can, to find out what they are doing right, what they wish they did better,
and what we can all learn from them. The Benedict Option has to be something
that ordinary people can do in their own circumstances.
Do you really think you can just run away from the world and live off
in a compound somewhere? Get real!
No, I don't think that at all. While I wouldn't necessarily fault people
who sought geographical isolation, that will be neither possible nor desirable
for most of us. The early Church lived in cities, and formed its distinct life
there. Most of the Ben Op communities that come to mind today are not radically
isolated, in geography or otherwise, from the broader community. It's simply
nonsense to say that Ben Oppers want to hide from the world and live in some
sort of fundamentalist enclave. Some do, and it's not hard to find examples
of how this sort of thing has gone bad. But that is not what we should aim for.
In fact, I think it's all too easy for people to paint the Benedict Option as
utopian escapism so they can safely wall it off and not have to think about
it.
Isn't this a violation of the Great Commission? How can we preach the
Gospel to the nations when we're living in these neo-monastic communities?
Well, what is evangelizing? Is it merely dispersing information? Or is there
something more to it. The Benedict Option is about discipleship , which
is itself an indirect form of evangelism. Pagans converted to the early Church
not simply because of the words the first Christians spoke, but because of the
witness of the kinds of lives they lived. It has to be that way with us too.
Pope Benedict XVI said something important in this respect. He said that
the best apologetic arguments for the truth of the Christian faith are the art
that the Church has produced as a form of witness, and the lives of its saints:
Yet, the beauty of Christian life is even more effective than art and
imagery in the communication of the Gospel message. In the end, love alone
is worthy of faith, and proves credible. The lives of the saints and martyrs
demonstrate a singular beauty which fascinates and attracts, because a Christian
life lived in fullness speaks without words. We need men and women whose
lives are eloquent, and who know how to proclaim the Gospel with clarity
and courage, with transparency of action, and with the joyful passion of
charity.
The Benedict Option is about forming communities that teach us and help us
to live in such a way that our entire lives are witnesses to the transforming
power of the Gospel.
It sounds like you are simply asking for the Church to be the Church.
Why do you need to brand it "the Benedict Option"?
That's a great point, actually. If all the churches did what they were supposed
to do, we wouldn't need the Ben Op. Thing is, they don't. The term "Benedict
Option" symbolizes a historically conscious, antimodernist return to roots,
an undertaking that occurs with the awareness that Christians have to cultivate
a sense of separation, of living as what Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon
call "resident aliens" in a "Christian colony," in order to be faithful to our
calling. And, "Benedict Option" calls to mind monastic disciplines that we can
appropriate in our own time.
It also draws attention to the centrality of practices in
shaping our Christian lives. The Reformed theologian James K.A. Smith, in his
great books
Imagining the Kingdom and
Desiring the Kingdom , speaks of these things. A recent secular book
by Matthew B. Crawford,
The World Beyond Your Head , talks about the critical importance of
practice as a way of knowledge. Here is Crawford writing about tradition and
organ making:
When the sovereignty of the self requires that the inheritance of the
past be disqualified as a guide to action and meaning, we confine ourselves
in an eternal present. If subjectivism works against the coalescing of communities
and traditions in which genuine individuals can arise, does the opposite
follow? Do communities that look to established forms for the meanings of
things somehow cultivate individuality?
… [C]onsider that when you go deep into some particular skill or art,
it trains your powers of concentration and perception. You become more discerning
about the objects you are dealing with and, if all goes well, begin to care
viscerally about quality, because you have been initiated into an ethic
of caring about what you are doing. Usually this happens by the example
of some particular person, a mentor, who exemplifies that spirit of craftsmanship.
You hear disgust in his voice, or see pleasure on his face, in response
to some detail that would be literally invisible to someone not initiated.
In this way, judgment develops alongside emotional involvement, unified
in what Polanyi calls personal knowledge. Technical training in such a setting,
though narrow in its immediate application, may be understood as part of
education in the broadest sense: intellectual and moral formation.
… What emerged in my conversations at Taylor and Boody [a traditional
organ-making shop] is that the historical inheritance of a long tradition
of organ making seems not to burden these craftspeople, but rather to energize
their efforts in innovation. They intend for their organs still be be in
use four hundred years from now, and this orientation toward the future
requires a critical engagement with the designs and building methods of
the past. They learn from past masters, interrogate their wisdom, and push
the conversation further in an ongoing dialectic of reverence and rebellion.
Their own progress in skill and understanding is thus a contribution to
something larger; their earned independence of judgment represents a deepening
of the craft itself. This is a story about the progressive possibilities
of tradition, then.
The Benedict Option is about how to rightly order the practices in our Christian
lives, in light of tradition, for the sake of intellectual and moral formation
in the way of Christ. You might even say that it's a story about the progressive
possibilities of tradition, and a return to roots in defiance of a rootless
age.
The current
turmoil within Republican Party is connected with shirking of middle class by neoliberalism.
So peons are now less inclined to support top 0.1%.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals." Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. ..."
"... the Democratic Leadership Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination, was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based solutions. ..."
"... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy. But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer. ..."
"... A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting to replace. ..."
"... "At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic. " ..."
"... There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes: ..."
"... Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65 – 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down to two candidates in October. ..."
"... Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in the Reagan Revolution? ..."
"... I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party. Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters. Its less certain that she will win the general election. ..."
"... To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region, and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally. ..."
"... A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking its own basic duty. ..."
"... The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent, responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close to providing this at the national level. ..."
"... One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters. ..."
"... The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends. ..."
"... Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. ..."
"... I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end – perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.' ..."
"... But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican President). ..."
"... The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set the stage. ..."
"... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. ..."
"... "Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy." ..."
"... I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been part of the very problem. ..."
"... Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. ..."
"... Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented. Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent. It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with the most to reinvest in their community the US. ..."
"... I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any genuine legs – it's an across the board application. ..."
This year is shaping up to be the most unconventional moment in American politics
in a generation.
A race that mere months ago seemed to promise yet another Bush vs. another
Clinton has so far given us instead the populist insurgencies of Bernie Sanders
and Donald Trump. Whether or not either of them gets his party's nomination,
the neoliberal consensus of the past two decades seems about to shatter. Free
trade, immigration, waging war for democracy, and even the relative merits of
capitalism and "democratic socialism" have all come into question. Perhaps more
fundamentally, so has the right of Clintons and Bushes-and those like them-to
rule.
Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people
once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals."
Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker
Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that
of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests
and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. The Pat Buchanan
presidential campaigns of 1992 and 1996 put Francis's ideas to the test. They
fell short of propelling Buchanan to the GOP nomination, and by the end of the
1990s there was nary a trace of paleo ideology to be found among conservatives
or Republicans. The return of the Bush family to power in 2000 seemed to confirm
that nothing had changed after a decade of skirmishes.
Now suddenly there's Trump. And on the left, there's Sanders, a throwback
to a time when progressives embraced the socialist label. That had fallen out
of fashion even before the end of the Cold War-indeed, the Democratic Leadership
Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination,
was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based
solutions."
That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the
Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is
not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan
establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the
rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one
degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy.
But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of
voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism
appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer.
A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only
the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to
see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting
to replace. Just as the end of the Cold War marked the passing of an era,
and partially or wholly transformed the left and right alike, so another era
is drawing to a close now, with further political mutations to come. Trump and
Sanders need not be the future, but what Bush and Clinton represent is already
past-no matter who wins in November.
Conservatives of Burkean temperament view all of this warily. There is an
opportunity here to replace stale ideologies with a prudence that is ultimately
more principled than any mere formula can be. But there is also the risk that
the devil we know is only making way for another we don't. At times like these,
it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology,
but a healthy and humane republic.
"At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve,
which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic.
"
Amen.
My people have been here for hundreds of years, and I love my country
with a depth of feeling that is difficult to convey. Our hard-pressed republic
is our most precious possession, and it must be defended and shepherded
through the coming peril. That will require wisdom, strength, and courage,
and all the little platoons.
will require wisdom, strength, and courage, and all the little platoons.
"At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve …."
I think a lot of thoughtful Americans know what to conserve: the constitution.
With the possible exception of the Second Amendment, the constitution has
been virtually torched in its entirety. I just have to shake my head when
I listen to the debate over whether or not Apple should be required by law
to write a program to destroy the feature on its multi-million dollar product,
the iPhone, for which consumers buy it - security in their private information
and communication. And the Fourth Amendment, be damned.
How comes it that America - of all countries - is having that debate?
Were all those American security agencies always that amoral and I just
didn't notice?
The American constitution is not an instruction manual, it's a statement
of principles - fundamental principles upon which the massive superstructure
of law rests. Torch the constitution and it suddenly becomes easy not to
call to account those leaders who authorize and order torture, those bankers
who bring the world economy to its knees through fraud, those presidents
who commit war crimes through the practice of drone-murdering people because
they are merely suspected of terrorism. And it's just as easy to disenfranchise
voters with impunity by arguing on the basis of a rash of voter fraud that
everyone knows does not exist.
If the country no longer recognizes a constitution upon which laws prohibiting
on pain of punishment these and other crimes against democracy, then what
you've got is a nation of men - barbarians living in a state of nature -
not a nation of laws.
I agree with this editorial, but, as delia ruhe points out, this republic
has not been "healthy and humane" for quite some time. It's time for a national
renewal. I never thought Trump would be the agent of this renewal. There's
plenty to dislike about him, but if he's what it takes to right the ship
and either restore a "healthy and humane" republic or create the conditions
for someone else to do so afterwards, then so be it.
There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes:
1) Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65
– 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down
to two candidates in October.
2) Why is Trump that much different that Perot? The Perot movement was
minimized by a strong economy and the unemployment rate is getting low in
2016.
3) What if there isn't another Trump? To whip the radical middle took
Trump to pull additional voters, there might not be another in 2020.
4) Is the number of radical middle voters slightly decreasing every election
cycle?
5) Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in
the Reagan Revolution?
I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party.
Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party
the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through
force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters.
Its less certain that she will win the general election.
Want to solve the political-economy differences between citizens of collectivist
and individualist temperament? Eliminate all tax exemptions secretly written
into the tax code for individuals and organizations (they are identified
by language that applies only to that individual or organization), then
invest the proceeds for five years into a sovereign wealth trust fund that
pays $25,000 per year, adjusted for inflation, to all legal citizens beginning
at age 21 (or pass legislation directing the Federal Reserve to deposit
$10 Trillion dollars directly into the fund-quantitative easing for the
people, if you will).
This money would be used by citizens to cover life-cycle risk to income
from any source: job loss, divorce, illness, transportation and home repairs,
macroeconomic chaos, or anything else life throws as a person. The funds
would be retrievable as a person chooses: yearly, monthly, weekly, or in
a $50,000 lump sum once every three years. In addition, replace all income-based
taxes for individuals and organizations with a .005% tax on all transactions
cleared through the banking system, similar to the automated payments transaction
tax advocated by Wisconsin professor Edgar Feige. This would allow the supply
of products and services to roughly match the increased demand generated
by the basic income guarantee, thereby avoiding or mitigating the business
cycle and inflationary source of current economic problems.
The precise mechanism for this proposal is based on the Alaska Permanent
Fund dividend program, which takes monies from state-owned oil fields and
invests prudently in a diverse portfolio world-wide. In turn, this concept
is based on the "topsy-turvy nationalization" idea proposed by English economist
James E. Meade, who suggested governments purchase a 50% share of all publicly-traded
stocks, then pay a "social dividend" (Social Security for All) out of the
earnings from these investments to all citizens. Professor James A. Yunker
proposed a similar idea in his book Pragmatic Market Socialism, finding
under a general equilibrium analysis that output and equity, as measured
by a utilitarian social welfare function, both increased when income smoothing
was financed by pre-distributed social dividends rather than by increased
taxes.
Under this proposal, both conservatives and liberals would achieve what
they say they desire: non-paternalistic held for people's income fluctuations
for liberals, and real incentives to invest and work for conservatives.
Some might say this mechanism for socializing both risk and reward cannot
be implemented, as human nature suggests that people might not accept a
policy that also benefits rivals. Nonetheless, if we want a political-economic
modus vivendi, here is a solution.
Of course, there would still be problems faced by out society, and "solving"
the economic aspect of our malaise will not by itself generate nirvana.
But give people and organizations real security that does not also support
apathy (i.e., both equity and efficiency, as the economist call it), and
you would go a long way towards making the culture war less harsh (it is
mostly based on economic fears projected onto the "other"). In the socio-political
complex, one must honor humanity as it is , not as we wish, or are comfortable
with in our own lives. Replace neoliberalism with a respect for both tradition
and change.
@delia ruhe & may it be so – I fervently agree with you and the editors.
To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in
the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region,
and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our
own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally.
A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has
squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the
world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking
its own basic duty.
The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent,
responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close
to providing this at the national level. Everyone knows this, but now
– for the first time in at least 5 decades – people are starting to discuss
it openly. It really is a breath of fresh air.
One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington
Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door,
where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door
by Trump and his supporters.
The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of
Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends.
"The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders
and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment
is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters."
That's a problem with which the Democrat base must must come to grips.
Across the great political and cultural gulf that separates us, I salute
those honorable and decent Democrats and liberals who make the attempt.
But it is instructive to consider the very different trajectories of
Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street, having ebbed from
front pages and headlines long since, has now virtually disappeared into
Sanders' wickering campaign.
But the Tea Party kept at it. It has been stirring the pot for over six
years now, menacing the establishment, chronically kicking out incumbents
(including disappointing or coopted Tea Party incumbents), and continuing
to drive broad political developments.
Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be
a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely
ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the various
attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved to be adults
with staying power, real agents of change. The pacts born of deep concern
for the republic made years ago in hearts, homes, conversations among friends
and coworkers, over the Web on sites like this one, is alive and well.
I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end
– perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.'
The Soviets were not defeated by our military build-up – the fact that
their factories were turning out unusable junk and exploding TVs was what
defeated them. China saw the writing on the wall earlier in 1979.
But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up
a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight
Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican
President).
The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under
Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists
became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set
the stage.
We all have confirmation biases (fueled by a personal history) in how
we choose to interpret history and how we bookend things.
The concluding paragraph is excellent. I pray we are not entering even
darker times and that there can be renewal for the American Republic.
"Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon
be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc."
Only because older voters, particularly older black voters keep propping
it up. Not exactly a firm foundation. Sanders margins among young voters
along with the successful political work done by actual political groups
(rather than disruptive groups) like the Working Families Party show who
is going to inherit the Democratic Party.
That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties
after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under
Barack Obama is not entirely surprising.
I've long wanted to read the Donald Warren book but it has been out of
print and unavailable at Amazon. If anyone knows of any online bookseller
that has used copies, please tell.
Thanks to @Blas another first on the pages of TAC: the words "Trump"
and "Humane" used in relation to one another.
And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any sort of populist
reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across the aisle.
@AndyG "And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any
sort of populist reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across
the aisle."
What a laugh.
"Across the aisle" from the Tea Party congressmen are Democrats who say
"What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. You must not only tolerate
what is repugnant to you, you must accept it or I'll have you arrested.
The Federal judiciary is the engine of democracy. I only enforce laws I
like. Only a fanatic would try to balance or reduce the federal budget.
It's as impossible and absurd as controlling immigration. Wall Street is
just fine as long as it hires lots of Diversity Officers, and the only people
who oppose globalism and the corporations who fill my campaign coffers are
racists and bigots."
As to populist reforms that TP Republicans and Democrat dissidents might
have cooperated on, like reimposition of Glass-Steagel, or laws requiring
vigorous prosecution of Wall Street criminals and Wall Street-owned government
officials, or reining in the NSA, or ending the Middle East wars, the establishments
of both parties have collaborated to crush their efforts. Just ask Rand
Paul (R) and Ron Wyden (D).
Of course the Tea Party base is still fighting back hard. It's engaged
in mortal combat with the GOP establishment. God willing and with perseverence
it may prevail.
And what are those "across the aisle", the congressional Democrats, doing?
Other than politely watching Sanders sputter into oblivion as they prepare
for HRC's coronation? And what is the Democrat base doing other than making
that possible? Most of them aren't even going to the polls …
"Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon
be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely
ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the
various attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved
to be adults with staying power, real agents of change."
I was heavily involved with the original Zucotti Park Occupy encampment,
doing outreach to unions and the working class. There was quite a bit of
hope for this in the early heady days of Occupy; but in the end, the priorities
of a movement run by and for impoverished and entitled graduate students
won out. Around this time I started to understand that the center of gravity
of real radicalism in this country was on the "right".
"Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another,
to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy."
If you are having to measure it in degrees of this or ht, then there's
a good chance you don't represent what it is that you partially represent.
In my view conservative is not hodge podge, it's a mechanism or an a priori
vie point by which one approaches most or all of their life.
My guess is that people are not responding o a conservative orthodoxy
because they just don't see one. In my view Sen Cruz and Dr. Caron and even
(CEO) Mrs. Fiorina have the closest ties to a conservative view. Where i
seems to come undone is on the issue of (needlessly) aggressive foreign
policy. Mr. Trump is a conservative now, but his life has not fully reflected
as much.
The traditional conservative
very pro the "common man" Does not oppose wealth, but that is not
a goal in of itself.
does not pretend that that there is not objective realities - there
are facts that matter – Truth is not relative even if opinions, ideas
and tastes are.
prudence to change, why and what it's consequences.
fairness, fair play and undying desire or justice
economic efficiency (not just frugality)
a definitive sense of country and kinsmen – even if he or she thinks
they are less their cup of tea and morality –
a belief in a divine being with whom one is dynamically involved
with – while Christianity is my own preference it need not be the sole
belief that a conservative adhere's to.
I have to comprehend the community benefit for killing children
in the womb, much it's complete undermining of what innocents means.
It makes little practical sense for a community that pushes the choice
of homosexual expression a some kind norm when it adds nothing of community
value beyond individual satisfaction. That a dynamic which is retrograde
to community flourishing should be a national agenda is also incomprehensible
___________________
I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been
part of the very problem. Though I guess, the shift to another direction
is a positive sign. As I recall the Tea Party was the last to give up the
ghost that the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile and certainly a leap from
conservative thought and practice, in almost every respect.
It dawned them rather belated that the PA and HMS was going to come back
to haunt them. And yet for those who are Christian , what they should have
known is that in the end, it is just such programs that will be used to
round them and send them packing - yet, they have been all for extreme forms
of government when it suited them. Now that democrats are using those against
their interests, they are suddenly awake - suddenly they are about the Constitution.
Yet they have been all to happy to abandon the same when it comes those
who come into contact with police. When Republicans should have embraced
civil protections, they shunned it as though such concerns were unconstitutional
the powers that began turned their sights on them. Hard to claim some populist
mandate unless the so called populism benefits your interests alone. I am
dubious that this is some kind middle and lower class uprising in the Republican
party - the support for Mr. Trump appears to be much broader.
_________________
Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue
of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. I was walking
on campus yesterday. And having lived in these community for some time,
it struck me as deeply depressing that there were large groups of Asians
and Hispanics groups and it was starkly distressing to realize that that
for all of this country's embrace of diversity, blacks remain non existent
on campus. Considering that education is the now the bastion of democratic
and liberal life, blacks seem very ill served by the people they support.
I doubt the Rose Law firm is going to abandon overseeing contracts to support
cheap labor which will most impact negatively the lives of no few blacks.
But if you don't have th gumption to fight, the democratic broad rode is
a sensible choice. Fear of losing what you don't have is a liberal/democratic
tote bag.
I remain hopeful that one day, blacks will wake up and reject the liberal
bait and switch spoon fed them.
_________________________
Unfortunately,
Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When
in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented.
Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent.
It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the
country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute
throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with
the most to reinvest in their community the US.
_____________
I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have
been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are
spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country
that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that
frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing
in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any
genuine legs – it's an across the board application.
"... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
"... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
"... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
"... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
"... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
"... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
"... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
"... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
"... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
"... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
"... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
"... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
"... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
"... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
"... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
"... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
"... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
"... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
"... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
"... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
"... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
"... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
"... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
"... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
"... orders you to consent ..."
"... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
"... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the
left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as
a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support
for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent
task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure
of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist
politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal
to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and
affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the
self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard
version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.
The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations
of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of
the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment,
updated to take account of the radically different technological and social
structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development
is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between
the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive
public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet
ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy
agenda.
In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a
political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists
assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for
the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition
of leftists and soft neoliberals.
This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in
the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal,
has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win,
her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete
with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton
presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism,
the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.
The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully,
it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend
towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends
on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.
Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am
I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need
true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections,
like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to
be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled
with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US –
inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme
Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the
next eight years).
Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of
tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"
My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism,
at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural
past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'.
(I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism
and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity
for those to align with that of the right)
bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?
It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you
think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over
the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see
an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?
And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political
failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition?
Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?
Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?
MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism,
such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose
them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"
I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually
believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are
arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes
an arsehole.
Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that
they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most
people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have
reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude
self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is,
and this drum should be banged more.
PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that
usually are mixed up:
1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant
is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing
nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international
inequality.
2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how
exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator
of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income
inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.
These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the
impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by
the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese
workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated
the fall in relative wages.
Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers
in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers
in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism
and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort
of allergic to tribalism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both
promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that
Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a
dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called
racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close
the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated
, will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened
in Germany? It's a troubling question.
casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
"The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the
accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative
must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar
social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different
technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological
terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the
Internet."
Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers,
starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is
from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really
will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry
of jobs and manufacturing.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics;
downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to
supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement
and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer
supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy.
IOW, an economic failure.
(Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)
Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education
but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive.
It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education
and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But
this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals
the show.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as
people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence
enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality,
so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic"
terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious,
but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.
This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation
happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities
"tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities
between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're
talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people
in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left.
But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly
know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries
like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided
interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism"
serves this conversation as a signifier.
For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist"
defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on
the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty
from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to
defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean
accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World
social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin
appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions
in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the
economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering
a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism,
and so on and so on à la Lenin.)
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap
to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely
not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation
of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created
the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put
incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in
its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic
conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism)
is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left
than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and
the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee
for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for
two reasons.
First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for
neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case
in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice
between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).
Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological
estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political
power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path
of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a
sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia,
for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality
he reached power.
Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change
(if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic
countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.
I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge
in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.
Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
Bravo, Will G-R!
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to
be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired
in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern
political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community"
of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy
into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
)))))))))))))))
I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call
national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage
which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits
for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world.
I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance?
I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same
thing.
The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force
would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try
not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.
For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through:
current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to
turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity
can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance,
I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important
problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require
a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no
amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually
exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs
wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own
ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").
You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys
real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather
than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite.
The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter
what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class
status preservation.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
@ comment 16:
I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US,
there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change.
Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures
of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers
that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist
marketification of everything.
So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual
action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that
is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like
racism and environmental problems.
So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal
enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting
fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but
the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them
for swimming in circles is… problematic.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
)))))))))))
I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism
and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point
is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To
just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology
is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility
of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
"Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably
didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in
circles is… problematic."
I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to
call attention to this. I
helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the
facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently
what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia.
As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas
might.
Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that
350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural
approach means that nothing is possible.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm
@ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary
baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist
ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.
As hesitant as I am to play the
"Fallacy
Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of
Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist
Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken,
but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a
different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly
clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all
sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people
to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as
the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the
problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see,
and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless
ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this
problem.
On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin
calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of
our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to
characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore
natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a
reading /
listening recommendation.
RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the
term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always
used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper
analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first
took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed
as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do
not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British
system of politics and government long before these failures became widely
acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure,
the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself,
again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts'
must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can
be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.
More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is
now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its
own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons
neoliberals direct against their critics?
But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's
dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding
should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly
a whole lot of different "tribes."
awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the
face of insurgencies on the left and right?
Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism
("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural
recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure,
is different, although related (sadly)
"But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public
sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements,
as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run
on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all
smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part
of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is
to take communitarianism more seriously.
The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming,
technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic
commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as
well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for
the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles,
but it's still working.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth
opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat
of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should
call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of
deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized
wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central
to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of
history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating
the discourses of racism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist
and Marxist Richard Lewontin:
Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science
is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is
that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know
, maybe someone will get it right some day.
A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism
is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy
into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically
based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every
center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted.
But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait
to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that
takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists
would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.
Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
Bob Zannelli @27
"about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin
, the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader
in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
"I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment
will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by
which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway
than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others
than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough
that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is
about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage
the good sides.
One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count
on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities
to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism
is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about
it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the
money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need
you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question
in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
)))))))))))))
Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can
be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing
the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based
economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn
from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.
In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault,
with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not
conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics,
and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear
weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These
days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake
, old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
@ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not
planning around it would be foolish.
But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some
vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in
terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism,
we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has
a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever
ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national
and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think
about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human
nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically
contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired
as the institutions themselves.
It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for
the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they
feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.
At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The
arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to
make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy"
in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether
the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's
even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally
the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity
than global capital already seems to achieved.
To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation
of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of
all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective
masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or
maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught.
Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal
political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers
of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also
one of global capital's greatest nightmares.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from
Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper
sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism."
I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent
in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as
comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory
as diametrically opposed to each other.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime
The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no
longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting
surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the
transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this
will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy
or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better
expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely
not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient
affiliations.
Clover's model is the Paris Commune.
(PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that
usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe)
or even better Crooked Timber.)
Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily,
to justify the emotions.
There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon
to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar
job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:
–nature is selfish
–resources are scarce
–money measures real value
–wants are infinite
–there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
–you have to work for your daily bread
–incentives matter
–people want to keep up with the Joneses
–labor should be geographically mobile
–government is inefficient
–welfare destroys families
–printing money causes inflation
–the economy is a Darwinian mechanism
These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming
inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.
Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head,
is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And
which causes most of our problems.
Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet
obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would
be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you
say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to
the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity,
and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed
to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting
human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy,
and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait,
wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have,
and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life.
In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants
are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads
the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter":
if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families."
…But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth,
yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available,
and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches,
isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets
solved when we solve the real problem?
But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know
how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think
that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that
we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism
is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles
are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught
in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their
enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are
simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.
Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer
to Carnival
Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution
that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and
the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew
society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the
social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social
transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention
on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."
I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious
analysis to say that it is.
"Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube
used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11,
I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at
first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling
system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling
package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because
the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.
Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
"Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong
faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in
the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the
Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles,
the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But
all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years
ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion
of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because
it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the
demands of their tribal masters.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
. . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side
honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or
Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial
and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed
like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.
Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich
points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right
who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing
that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly
caring Lefties.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible
Patrick Murphy.
Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might
be premature.
Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
@ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up:
what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member
of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party?
(I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals
are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members
of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).
Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who
supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them,
how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it
does not benefit them.
I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential
government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential
employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that
they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers
who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.
I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism"
is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll
try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has
never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on
a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but
may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then
that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters,
who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have
a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.
As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which
it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense.
American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade.
It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism
and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.
Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon
(without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating),
but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered
a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.
As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton,
you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage.
To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats
had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception
was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised
by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats
were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.
So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic
ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever
we're calling the left alternative to it.
Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
"Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism"
has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis
of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social
democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength
it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity
– built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a
surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the
form, that matters.
Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak,
to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate
change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental
and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can
best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer
I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will
intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat
challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry
them.
If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries,
it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives
in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but
really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries,
socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism
and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of
"tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular,
contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism.
You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but
since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode)
then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.
Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because
there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many
recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken
power.
John Quiggin,
What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's
significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion
to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or
will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding
population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).
I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the
argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't
see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).
If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move,
and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps
we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism
(joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left.
I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of
the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on
the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated
with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense
of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not
in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the
sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion
back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting
liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically
appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini.
The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the
socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is
characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and
the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority
is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day
manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist
regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't
what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well,
a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.
Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody
I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's
liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term
"neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli
Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia,
Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake
of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer
problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely
refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible
with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't
well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs,
to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. .
. . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly
promise control that lost it.
You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency
by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation
is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.
The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout
is a cover story for the looting.
The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences.
The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has
to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
Will G-R @ 55
So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that,
rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80
years ago were so much clearer.
We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini,
he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead
past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance
state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical
fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an
iPhone app.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
reason @ 54
Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global
order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires
are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the
bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void
between.
It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left
would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an
elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses
with robots.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
"Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our
stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little
quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party
system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political
currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of
either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously
to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save
the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces
that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start
marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll
do us.
In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern
Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary,
Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role
as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist
seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly
transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties
in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit
more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would
be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard
fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense
than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one
up.
Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
> You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism.
Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals
will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers,
they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower
in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China,
Zimbabwe, North Korea, …
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is
(unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly
while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and
listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.
Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they
can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300
hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves
you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge
of what's going on, you are part of the problem.
Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their
name, or who has good hair.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying
the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is
categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't
be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not
an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently
represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however
mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the
contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that
fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except
as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever,
it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.
BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason,
so
here's Take 2 .
Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The
use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political
order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race)
the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism (
Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism
is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic,
it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights,
and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the
connection.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.
Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast
because the society works or because the society fails.
Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions
of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants.
Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego
maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism
seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top
The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task
- it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified
by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as
are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either
directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed
a parasitic elite.
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of
whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you
ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life
being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all
and deliver nothing.
Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser
evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians,
both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net;
they are competing to deliver you.
Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300
hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of
a frontal lobotomy.
I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard"
and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have
been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals -
that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those
insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite
grasp, but never mind.
Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that
one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.
Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she
wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in
Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal
design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if
she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in
the face of Republican intransigence.
In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial
classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance
state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future
are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity
against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph
even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
Will G-R, Bob Zannelli
Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy,
en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you
can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech
and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political
categories, if not universes.
There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive
that the conversation hardly seems worth having.
stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy,
Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase
in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably,
Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina,
the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of
a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)
There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted
fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure
states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called
Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of
WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany.
Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely
fascist.
In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states
as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but
the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how
fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate
things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are
not organized as business firms.
Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and
mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself,
with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating
Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes
or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the
Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians.
(Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the
structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody
expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a
mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war,
as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist
states.
The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every
notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical
is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines
that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a
kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph
of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable
alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such
a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's
SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no
such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.
Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive"
aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions,
is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's
felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the
sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love
the specific people like them that they love and hate others.
One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect
the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're
never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're
almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you
do.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .
There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology
and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a
strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices
and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave
them into.
There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .
Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break
with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but
in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes
required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB
is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he
said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million
Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while
some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think
that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their
ideology.
But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue
indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal
types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling
Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally,
what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people
on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite
in a Popular Front to oppose them.
I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is
going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic
Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become
Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are
going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left
interests.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our
present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the
GOP in any meaningful sense;
as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional
leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological
organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be
a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading"
his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face
on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump
him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore
his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.
What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump
per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning
of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious
way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and
should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through
a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.
Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
Val etc.
I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view
that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the
in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors
than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the
key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal
and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.
Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation,
free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the
idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over
another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly
meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).
The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal
distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based
on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.
So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support
it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone
better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would
make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the
grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry
too much about the other guys.
Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap,
mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies'
and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend
to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a
good general description of the distinction.
And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean
any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone
is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring
explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down
on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as
any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and
a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the
tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.
Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am
What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what
you will, is a necessity.
It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that
provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide.
It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity
and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment.
Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an
out-group, citizens and non-citizens.
To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional
Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently
appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human
flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society
in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally,
tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual
aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human
beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I
think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity
(not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence
events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless
atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm
Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy.
As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect
change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.
Just to give voice to
the
contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role
in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy:
even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine
if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number
of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by
2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not
just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral
process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter
turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution
to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized
is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option
to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens
have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote"
for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political
stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is
a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.)
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.) {}
Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state
separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I
find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent
his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the
revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not
entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the
revolution, I hope that works out for you.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm
Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut
it with a knife…
"Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable
to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy"
. My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised
on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote
in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of
consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system
that orders you to consent .
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My
counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the
consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a
democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent.
As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that
orders you to consent.{}
I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism
to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative
, over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss
it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was
ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during
the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still
living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the
dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm
if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm
Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent."
Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting
is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.
Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."
Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone
ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to
do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's
real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the
"Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to
repeat, nothing.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?
There is no alternative.
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}
Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage
in politics.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul
evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil
makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically,
there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm
stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.
So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy?
Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population
was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the
contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation
can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy
actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in
silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer
is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal
democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders
are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate
in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology
of its legitimating idea.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm
Will G-R @ 94
Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on
some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic
and opportunistic pieties?
Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only
the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials
in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections
with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in
2015.
Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical
infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote,
after all!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion
space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and
in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and
unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing
so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government
or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society
there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed
to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn
CT into yet another space where it isn't.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm
not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally
post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite
beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense.
Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology
of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics.
His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure
in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle
of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save
failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe
economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism
leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in
the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries,
unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform,
it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail,
but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power,
gentrifying as they go, continues.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially)
local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone
to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize
the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under
President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy
is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things
at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't
done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the
mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy
of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually
be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to
openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently
legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried
to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that
Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about
its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates
the point.)
The
Connecting the Dots series has convincingly shown a number of interconnected
reasons why the global system is in crisis, and why there is no way out without
a structural transformation of the dominant neoliberal system. In our contribution,
we want to stress the key importance of what we call a "value regime," or simply
put, the rules that determine what society and the economy consider to be of
value. We must first look at the underlying modes of production - i.e. how value
is created and distributed - and then construct solutions must that help create
these changes in societal values. The emerging answer for a new mode of value
creation is the re-emergence of the Commons.
With the growing awareness of the vulnerability of the planet and its people
in the face of the systemic crises created by late-stage capitalism, we need
to ready the alternatives and begin creating the next system now. To do so,
we need a full understanding of the current context and its characteristics.
In our view, the dominant political economy has three fatal flaws.
Pseudo-Abundance
The first is the characteristic need for the capitalist system to engage
in continuous capital accumulation and growth. We could call this pseudo-abundance,
i.e. the fundamental article of faith, or unconscious assumption, that the natural
world's resources are infinite. Capitalism creates a systemic ecological crisis
marked by the overuse and depletion of natural resources, endangering the balance
of the environment (biodiversity extinction, climate change, etc).
Scarcity Engineering
The second characteristic of capitalism is that it requires scarce commodities
that are subject to a tension between supply and demand. Scarcity engineering
is what we call this continuous attempt to undo natural abundance where it occurs.
Capitalism creates markets by the systemic re-engineering of potentially or
naturally abundant resources into scarce resources. We see this happening with
natural resources in the
development of "terminator seeds" that undo the seeds' natural regeneration
process. Crucially, we also see this in the creation of artificial scarcity
mechanisms for human culture and knowledge. "Intellectual property" is imposed
in more and more areas, privatizing common knowledge in order to create artificial
commodities and rents that create profits for a privileged "creator class."
These first two characteristics are related and reinforce each other, as
the problems created by pseudo-abundance are made quite difficult to solve due
to the privatization of the very knowledge required to solve them. This makes
solving major ecological problems dependent on the ability of this privatized
knowledge to create profits. It has been shown that the patenting of technologies
results in a systemic slowdown of technical and scientific innovation, while
un-patenting technologies accelerates innovation. A good
recent example of this "patent lag" effect is the extraordinary growth of
3D printing, once the technology
lost its patents.
Perpetually Increasing Social Injustice
The third major characteristic is the increased inequality in the distribution
of value, i.e. perpetually increasing social injustice.
As Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century shows us,
the logic of capital is to concentrate more and more wealth into fewer hands
through compound interest, rent seeking, purchasing legislation, etc. Our current
set of rules are hardwired to increase inequality and injustice.
"... In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing" capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution. ..."
"... The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism, combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and brought populist policies with a vengeance. ... ..."
"... Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic refugees from economically depressed regions. ..."
"... "Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried it." ~George Bernard Shaw ..."
"... "Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement, one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed. ..."
"... It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy to the great benefit of those who bore its costs. ..."
"... Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution" part tried. ..."
"... Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers. ..."
"... What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to buy what they want to sell. ..."
"... There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners. ..."
The forthcoming changes in capitalism?: Sometimes it's useful to put
symbolic dates on when a different era begins. The end of Thatcherism, it
could be argued,
came on July 10 in the then PM-candidate speech by Theresa May. It was
perhaps appropriate that another woman, a Tory Prime Minister, would be
credited with the ending of Thatcherism. The key words, which immediately
attracted attention (see
also Philip Stevens in today's "Financial Times") were not those about
inequality (which has become a common place these days) but about the changes
in the internal structure of capitalism: reintroduction of workers' and
consumers' representatives on management boards, limits on the executive
pay, reduction of job insecurity for the young people and much greater access
to top jobs for those coming from less privileged backgrounds.
For the
first time since the late 1970s (at the top level of policy-making), we
are back to the issues of reforms in the way capitalism functions rather
than discussing the ways in which the external environment would be made
more market friendly. In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing"
capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of
private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond
ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution.
The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism,
combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable
levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without
significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and
brought populist policies with a vengeance. ...
He goes on to identify three areas where he can imagine change.
cm -> am...
Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a
mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then
with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic
refugees from economically depressed regions.
Business overall doesn't want free agents. One major point of work visa
program abuse is that it is (still?) socially unacceptable to curtail the
rights of working citizens to e.g. take the option to "not work", or not
for a specific employer, at their own choosing (provided ability to survive
without a wage or finding another job).
For example, one provision of the H1-B program is that one cannot stay
in the country without being officially employed (and within the skill set
for which one was brought in).
Thi$ World'$ Banker$ -> DeDude...
"revise capitalism than just burning it"
Perhaps we should also revise the holder within which capitalism spins.
The Milieu encapsulating present day capitalism is inflation. This inflationary
holder nearly requires folks to invest, to buy shares in capitalization,
shares with risk. By transplanting capitalism into a deflationary holder,
capitalism could continue to perform its many functions without requiring
nearly everyone to buy shares, to buy risk.
Within deflation, savings are rewarded with a ROI by way of the expanding
buying power of each dollar saved, an automatic ROI that frees savings from
the risk of capitalism. Sure!
The experts would continue to take calculated risks, Bill. The rank and
file would no longer need to buy shares in preparation for their retirement.
And yes, bailouts for fat bankers should be allowed to die a gruesome death.
Hey!
Our bankruptcy lawyers have been cheated out of their fun for far too
long.
Deflation is also healthy for the GTF, global Triffin fiat that we print
for profit. At present we print bonds also, but with deflation there would
be no need to print bonds, just more fiat that would give poor folk the
same ROI that is now enjoyed only by wealthy bond holders.
Deflation is also healthier for nations that operate with religious restrictions
against charging interest for bank loans. During the middle ages Christians
were not allowed to charge interest. Do we still have Christians today?
"Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried
it." ~George Bernard Shaw
rayward
Why would the beneficiaries of globalization want to invest in public
goods in America? They wouldn't, and they don't. I suspect that many of
the beneficiaries already know it, but in the emerging phase of globalization,
American firms will be competing with China rather than collaborating with
China.
Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting
the genie back in. American firms shifting alliances to Vietnam from China
won't solve the problems in America and will ratchet up the potential problems
in the far east, including trade wars and real wars that are often triggered
by trade wars.
Turning inward (as the populists would do) won't make goods produced
in America more competitive in global markets; it will make them less competitive.
point -> rayward...
"Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting
the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement,
one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with
a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment
of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed.
It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy
to the great benefit of those who bore its costs.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
ThaomasH
Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution"
part tried.
mulp -> ThaomasH...
Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers.
Option 1: heavily tax people with lots of money they aren't spending
productively and then pay workers to build productive capital assets
that can generate returns on investment by taxes, eg, gas tax, water
fees, income taxes that rise with income return to education.
Option 2: don't tax money paid to workers to build productive capital
assets (but tax the income from those assets).
Few people are totally unable to be productive, but the investment cost
(labor) might be higher than the income. Some people with lots of money
will pay workers to invest in the disabled for a small productive return
instead of paying taxes out of concern or for a sense of duty to charity,
and that should be encouraged by not taxing money paid to labor.
For all labor income, social insurance should be taken by tax so workers
are paying to care for themselves and families collectively at a baseline.
Basically, returning to the "tax and spend" of the 60s, with every faction
getting to find groups of workers to pay. The conservatives likely love
to pay workers to make guns and bombs and pay men to act like an army -
that trained lots of idle young men with no direct, and a lot of airline
pilots. For liberals, pay workers to teach and do research. For the common
man, pay workers to build roads, railroads, schools, water and sewer, anything
to put people to work to make sure everyone gets paid a good income.
mrrunangun
Making top jobs more accessible to those from less privileged backgrounds
will require more affordable higher education and graduate professional
education for those from less privileged backgrounds. Experience has shown
that making large loans available for education does not actually make education
more affordable to those from modest backgrounds.
Progressives have discussed price controls on the health sector and indeed
Medicare has gone a long way in that direction already. Price controls in
the higher ed and especially professional schools should be considered if
we are to make these opportunities realistically available to those of modest
means.
Free Juco has been proposed by Chicago mayor Emmanuel and Tennessee governor
Haslem. That means tax increases for the rest of the citizens to replace
the money tuition provides now. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposal,
provided the tax increase actually replaced the tuition and was not subject
to the usual 50% rake-off for the political system that most taxes in Illinois
are subject to.
Back in the 1955-75 era, well-paid jobs were plentiful enough and university
education inexpensive enough that young men and women from modest backgrounds
could and did supply their own money for their own educations when parents
could not provide it. People could and did work their ways thru law school
tending bar and waiting tables then. It wasn't easy but it was doable for
ambitious bootstrappers. I doubt that could be done today. Education has
become so expensive in the contemporary world that few jobs available to
students can support the tuition + the personal expenses entailed in getting
a university education.
To recreate that kind of opportunity for today's young people, either
jobs that can support tuition and expenses have to be made available to
them or the cost of tuition and expenses need to be brought into line with
what the jobs available will support. Or a little of both. Tough challenges
either way.
John San Vant -> mrrunangun...
55-75 was about the only time in American history "well paid" Jobs were
plentiful. It also created a mess with how capitalism functions.
mulp -> John San Vant...
How so? Profits were low. Share prices tracked the labor cost of the
productive capital assets. The tax structure and demand for goods and services
from government ensured production required paying workers to the degree
that wages were bid up even for the unskilled worker. And you hired the
unskilled and trained them because you had no choice to meet demand for
your production.
Banks were tightly regulated so they couldn't rent seeking. Thus they
would lend only to people with income so lower incomes forced reduced consumption
lower profits leading to widespread support for government spending building
stuff businesses wanted so workers had more money to spend.
What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to
the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to
buy what they want to sell.
Peter K.
"The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism,
combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable
levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without
significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and
brought populist policies with a vengeance."
Again the term "populist." I don't like it.
There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced
around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise
of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners.
What will the center-left do? Will Hillary and May actually put in place
policies that work? Will they try?
Or will they continue to make excuses and engage in diversions?
I liked how Obama nodded to Bernie Sanders in his speech where if you
cared about inequality or money in politics you rallied to Bernie. What
was left unsaid there?
David
He makes three (kind of vague) proposals :
The middle class needs to be encouraged or facilitated to acquire
capital as a means of reducing inequality.
Development NGOs should focus on "hard"' infrastructure development
such as roads and schools.
Europe cannot, due to demographics, become "fortress Europe" and
needs to implement immigrant worker policies that don't necessarily
grant citizenship, just the right to work and then return home (many
countries currently do this - South Korea has thousands of American
and Canadian and Australian English teachers who will never be citizens
of SK).
1. I think this is interesting. First you need a minimum wage that allows
people to save a portion of their income and invest it - 15 bucks an hour
say.
Then, remember those classes like home economics in high school? They
need to try a finance class in which kids learn how to get an online account,
and basic investment strategies like investing in index funds or mutual
funds.
I say this as someone who has a portfolio that is currently 6x my yearly
salary. I got lucky b/c I got in 2010. But long term index funds will kill
treasury bonds if secular stagnation has any truth to it.
I would had another thing: strengthen social security by a lot.
2. Infrastructure investment is vital. NGOs should be held accountable
for their budgets and should in fact be well regulated.
3. Euhhhhh, immigration. A temporary foreign worker policy would be economically
useful. But if there's more terrorist attacks in France...
In a popular piece that recently appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, headlined, "The Future of
History", Francis Fukuyama pointed out that, despite widespread anger at Wall Street bailouts, there
has been no great upsurge of support for left-wing political parties. Fukuyama attributed this –
rightly, I believe – to a failure of ideas.
The 2008 financial crash revealed major flaws in the
neoliberal view of capitalism, and an objective view of the last 35 years shows that the neoliberal
model has not performed well relative to the previous 30 years. This is in terms of economic growth,
financial stability and social justice. But a credible progressive alternative has yet to take shape.
What should be the main outlines of such an alternative?
A progressive political economy must be based on a firm belief in capitalism – that is, on an
economic system in which most of the assets are privately owned and markets largely guide production
and distribute income. But it must also incorporate three defining progressive beliefs: the crucial
role of institutions; the need for state involvement in their design in order to resolve conflicting
interests and provide public goods; and social justice, defined as fairness, as an important measure
of a country's economic performance.
It was a great mistake of neoclassical economists not to see that capitalism is a socioeconomic
system and that institutions are an essential part of it. The recent financial crisis was made far
worse by profound institutional failures, such as the high level of leverage that banks were permitted
to have.
Empirical research has shown that four sets of institutions have a major impact on the performance
of firms and, therefore, on a country's economic growth. These include the institutions underpinning
its financial and labour markets, its corporate governance arrangements, its education and training
system and its national system of innovation (the network of public and private institutions that
initiate and diffuse new technologies).
Another defining belief of progressive thinking is that institutions do not evolve spontaneously,
as neoliberals believe. The state must be involved in their design and reform.
In the case of institutions underpinning labour and financial markets, as well as corporate governance,
the state must mediate conflicting interests. Likewise, a country's education and training system,
and its national system of innovation, are largely public goods, which have to be provided by the
state.
It should be clear that the role for the state that I have been describing is an enabling or market-supporting
one. It is not the command and control role promoted by traditional socialists or the minimalist
role beloved by neoliberals.
The other defining belief of progressive thinking rejects the neoliberal view that a country's
economic performance should be assessed solely in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) growth and
freedom. If one is concerned with a society's wellbeing, it is not possible to argue that a rich
country in which the top one percent holds most of the wealth is performing better than a slightly
less wealthy country in which prosperity is more widely shared.
Moreover, fairness is a better measure of social justice than equality. This is because it is
difficult to devise practical and effective policies to achieve equality in a market economy.
In addition, there is a real tradeoff between equality and economic growth, and egalitarianism
is not a popular policy even for many low-income people. In my experience, trade unions are much
more interested in wage differentials than in a simple policy of equal pay for all.
These are the core principles that I believe a new progressive political economy should embrace.
I also believe that Western countries that do not adopt this framework and instead cling to a neoliberal
political economy, will find it increasingly difficult to innovate and grow.
In the new global economy, which is awash with cheap labour, Western economies will not be able
to compete in a "race to the bottom", with firms seeking ever-cheaper labour, land and capital, with
governments seeking to attract them by deregulating and shrinking social benefits.
The only way Western economies will be able to compete and improve their standard of living is
by seeing themselves as being involved in a race to the top. That is, firms must improve their value
added through innovation in existing industries and by developing the capability to compete in new
and more sophisticated industries, where value added is generally higher.
Companies will be able to do this only if governments abandon the belief that they have no role
to play in the economy. In fact, the state has a key role to play in providing the conditions that
enable dynamic companies to innovate and grow.
"... Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist. ..."
"... Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of environmental context. ..."
"... A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century ..."
"... The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda ..."
"... Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible. ..."
"... Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism. ..."
John Harris is wonderful too. The only guy on the staff who can write about
the working class with clarity, respect and understanding. But Monbiot is
also the biscuit.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to
describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are
a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price'
which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants,
their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix'
the price, which abnegates the collective intelligence of the market participants,
and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems
grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers
and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively
the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible
hand is actually a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith
said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to enrich themselves to the detriment
of their home communities, because of an innate home bias. Thus, as if by
an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated
by neoliberal think tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement
or connection to the author, despite using his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
This is an interesting academic piece but the reality is that we don't have
anything like neo-liberalism in this country as defined by Hayek and it
has become a term of abuse by people who really ought to know better. The
strongest abuse of course is linked to the Blair Government, a period, of
course, when, with substantial success, the size and reach of the state
increased quite substantially, ie the complete opposite of neo-liberalism.
In fact, suggesting that the UK is neo liberal is not that much different
for suggesting that Russia had communism as defined by Marx.
Whether it is a good or bad thing that we don't have neo-liberalism is
open to academic debate but is not of much use in real life.
Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation
needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to
what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of
environmental context.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats
and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic
Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored
to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders
started threatening Hillary, or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The
dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary
people experience has driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not
move has given UK leftism a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience.
The opposition to rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic
oligarchy which runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and
ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits,
working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda,
that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison on the unions, pour
poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for
workers, and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it.
You can curse the middle class socialists all you like, but without their
support the labour movement would never have got off the ground.
Okay, so you've described the 1950's through to the 1980's. So what have
the unions done for us isn the last two decades ? Why is it all the successful,
profitable and productive industries in the Uk have little or no union involvement
?
Why is it that the least effective, highest costs and poorest performing
structures are in the public sector and held back by the unions ?
Here's a clue - the unions are operating in the 21st century with a 1950's
mentality.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off
the scale because the workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated
the idea that without the workforce, your entrepreneurs can't do anything
on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire without the
help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some
of us are human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling
and dollars, cause they're not the most important things in life.
It's the only way. It's not perfect but it achieves the best ( not ideal
) possible result. What if in the end there's no where left to go ? What
if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment
still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and
high employment still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where
the UK was pretty much in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate
to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite, the more people in gainful
employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down while
simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic
failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people
have cash to spare they spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the
hands of a minority and starve the masses of cash, economy dies. It really
is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching
themselves. To get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the
private wealth of the rich through financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation
is all that matters, you do not need to see the results. I suppose because
the followers believe when implemented it will work perfectly.
I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe
it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13
weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system,
it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding
pitfalls. Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not
benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling
further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU
excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
Let's make a start by staying in the EU.
"... I can only add, that our economic system already redistributes income upward to capital and management, whose contribution to productivity is far below what they are paid. ..."
"... That's the idea of neoliberal transformation of society that happened since 80th or even earlier. Like John Kenneth Galbraith noted "Trickle-down theory is the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows" ..."
"... "The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash of 1929 ..."
"... Just as was the case with his work on financial instability, Hyman Minsky's analysis of the problems of poverty and inequality in a capitalist economy, as well as his understanding of the political dysfunctions that would result from treating these problems in the wrong way, were prophetic. See this piece by Minksy's student L. Randall Wray, especially Section 2: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_515.pdf ..."
"... it is unjust to tell the poor that they must change before they will be entitled to work-whether it is their skills set or their character that is the barrier to work... Minsky always argued that it is preferable to "take workers as they are," providing jobs tailored to the characteristics of workers, rather than trying to tailor workers to the jobs available before they are allowed to work ..."
"... Further, NIT (and other welfare programs) would create a dependent class, which is not conducive to social cohesion (Minsky 1968). Most importantly, Minsky argued that any antipoverty program must be consistent with the underlying behavioral rules of a capitalist economy (Minsky no date, 1968, 1975a). One of those rules is that earned income is in some sense deserved. ..."
"... This misreads the politics. People who are disconnected from the job market very easily get disconnected from the political process. They don't vote. ..."
"... The problem in thinking here is the equilibrium paradigm. Equilibrium NEVER exists. If there is a glut the price falls below the marginal cost/revenue point, if the seller is desperate enough it falls to zero! Ignoring disequilibrium dynamics means this obvious (it should be obvious) point is simply ignored. The assumption of general equilibrium leads to the assumption of marginal productivity driving wages. You are not worth what you produce, you are worth precisely what somewhat else would accept to do your job. ..."
"... Never say never. There some stationary points at which equilibrium probably exists for a short period of time. But as the whole system has positive feedback loop built-in and is unstable by definition. So you are right in a sense that disequilibrium is the "normal" state of such a system and equilibrium is an exception. ..."
"... And the problem is more growth, is more growth is a trick we cannot always do in a finite resource technologically sophisticated world. (At least not growth as it is currently seen.) We need to start thinking in much longer term time scales. Saying that we have enough oil for 30 years, is not optimistic - it is an imminent crisis - or do we want our grandchildren to see the end of the world? ..."
"then more growth will simply lead to even more inequality."
Which is exactly what we have seen for the past 40 years, Great analysis
here. I can only add, that our economic system already redistributes
income upward to capital and management, whose contribution to productivity
is far below what they are paid.
ikbez -> DrDick...
"then more growth will simply lead to even more inequality."
That's the idea of neoliberal transformation of society that happened
since 80th or even earlier. Like John Kenneth Galbraith noted "Trickle-down
theory is the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough
oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows"
And another relevant quote:
"The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community
as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." John Kenneth Galbraith, The
Great Crash of 1929
anne -> likbez...
"The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community
as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." John Kenneth Galbraith, The
Great Crash of 1929
Just as was the case with his work on financial instability, Hyman
Minsky's analysis of the problems of poverty and inequality in a capitalist
economy, as well as his understanding of the political dysfunctions that
would result from treating these problems in the wrong way, were prophetic.
See this piece by Minksy's student L. Randall Wray, especially Section 2:
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_515.pdf
The centerpiece of Minsky's preferred approach was based on a government
commitment to "tight full employment". He believed that neither human capital
investment, economic growth, nor redistribution would be sufficient on their
own to address the problem.
As part of the critique of the human capital approach, Minsky argued
that:
"it is unjust to tell the poor that they must change before they
will be entitled to work-whether it is their skills set or their character
that is the barrier to work... Minsky always argued that it is preferable
to "take workers as they are," providing jobs tailored to the characteristics
of workers, rather than trying to tailor workers to the jobs available
before they are allowed to work (Minsky 1965, 1968, 1973)."
Minsky accurately foresaw the way in which a welfare approach to poverty,
as opposed to a full employment approach, would politically divide working
people among themselves:
"Further, NIT (and other welfare programs) would create a dependent
class, which is not conducive to social cohesion (Minsky 1968). Most
importantly, Minsky argued that any antipoverty program must be consistent
with the underlying behavioral rules of a capitalist economy (Minsky
no date, 1968, 1975a). One of those rules is that earned income is in
some sense deserved."
"With the perspective of the 1980s and 1990s now behind us, it is hard
to deny Minsky's arguments-President Reagan successfully turned most Americans
against welfare programs and President Clinton finally "eliminated welfare
as we know it." According to Minsky, a successful antipoverty program will
need to provide visible benefits to the average taxpayer."
We can note that this political problem has only gotten worse, as can
be seen from the deepening ugliness of our domestic politics, and the poll
results that MacGillis cites.
Minsky also understood the unhealthy political and economic dynamics
of an undirected aggregate demand approach to poverty, and promoted, following
ideas of Keynes, a measure of socialized investment and direct job creation:
"Minsky feared that using demand stimulus to reduce poverty would
necessarily lead to "stop-go" policy. Expansion would fuel inflation,
causing policy makers to reverse course to slow growth in order to fight
inflation (Minsky 1965, 1968). Because wages (and prices) in leading
sectors would rise in expansion, but could resist deflationary pressures
in recession, there would be an upward bias to rising wages in those
sectors. However, in the lagging sectors, wage increases would come
slowly-only with adequate tightening of labor markets -- and could be
reversed in recession. Hence, Minsky argued that a directed demand policy
would be required-to raise demand in the lagging sectors and for low
wage and unemployed workers. For this reason, he concluded that a direct
job creation program would be required."
All this adds up to a more activist role for the government sector.
As for people betraying their own economic interests, this phenomenon
was aptly described in "What's the matter with Kansas" which can actually
be reformulated as "What's the matter with the USA?". And the answer he
gave is that neoliberalism converted the USA into a bizarre high demand
cult. There are several characteristics of a high demand cult that are applicable.
Among them:
"The group is preoccupied with making money."
"Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished."
"Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, speaking
in tongues, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts
about the group or its leader(s)." Entertainment and, especially sport
events in the US society serves the same role.
"The group's leadership dictates – sometimes in great detail – how
members should think, act, and feel." Looks like this part of brainwashing
is outsourced to economy departments ;-)
"The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself,
its leader(s), and members (for example the group and/or the leader
has a special mission to save humanity)."
"The group has a polarized, "we-they" mentality that causes conflict
with the wider society."
"The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are,
for example, clergy with mainstream denominations)."
"The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify
means (for example: collecting money for bogus charities) that members
would have considered unethical before joining."
"The group's leadership induces guilt feelings in lower members
for the lack of achievement in order to control them."
"Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the
group."
"Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only
with other group members."
It is very difficult to get rid of this neoliberal sect mentality like
is the case with other high demand cults.
cm -> likbez...
What has any of this to do with human capital? "Capital" is basically
a synonym for productive capacity, with regard to what "productive" means
in the socioeconomic system or otherwise the context that is being discussed.
E.g. social or political capital designates the ability (i.e. capacity)
to exert influence in social networks or societal decision making at the
respective scales (organization, city, regional, national etc.), where "productive"
means "achieving desired or favored outcomes for the person(s) possessing
the capital or for those on whose behalf it is used".
Human capital, in the economic domain, is then the combined capacity
of the human population in the domain under consideration that is available
for productive endeavors of any kind. This includes BTW e.g. housewives
and other household workers whose work is generally not paid, but you better
believe it is socially productive.
likbez -> cm...
"Human capital, in the economic domain, is then the combined capacity
of the human population in the domain under consideration that is available
for productive endeavors of any kind. This includes BTW e.g. housewives
and other household workers whose work is generally not paid, but you
better believe it is socially productive."
This is not true. The term "human capital" under neoliberalism has different
semantic meaning: it presuppose viewing a person as a market actor.
No, its driven by racism. White trash will take with one hand, then walk
right into a voting both and screw themselves because they think they sticking
it to blacks, mexicans, gays, etc.
Syaloch -> kthomas...
Racism is certainly part of it, but it's really more fundamental than
that.
"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the
powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean
condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction
of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most
universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and
greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due
only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly
are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty
and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages."
What is racism if not an expression of resentment?
bakho said...
This misreads the politics. People who are disconnected from the
job market very easily get disconnected from the political process. They
don't vote. The people who do have jobs and are worried about keeping
them and being paid too little are voting against the "losers" who they
see as parasites. Never mind that the Malefactors of Great Wealth are the
true parasites. Elections in the US are won or lost on voter turnout.
The Rage said...
I guess it depends on what kind of economy you want.
Growth of all kinds is not good. The 2001-2007 "growth" was badly constructed.
I think America itself is in a bad rut....and has been since 1974. That
itself will not be popular. The consensus belief was everything was rosy
up until 2001. That is lie. They used to have a saying "nothing really happens
on the X-files anymore". It really applies to America since 1974. It goes
beyond "inequality".
I mean, we could have 3% wage growth in 2016 and 4% wage growth in 2017.
That doesn't mean a damn thing for a economy's health. The infrastructure
is bad. It shows up in pop culture apathy.
pgl -> The Rage...
"The 2001-2007 "growth" was badly constructed."
Glenn Hubbard might quarrel with this. He was well constructed for George
W. Bush's base - rich people.
On the whole - great comment!!!
cm -> The Rage...
The Y2K/dotcom boom unraveled in 2000, but not all at once. It is difficult
to impossible to disentagle the boundary between dotcom bust, 9/11 and the
prolonged reaction to it, and the start of the Bush presidency (and the
top policymaking figures that came with that, I don't want to necessarily
tie it to Bush himself).
At the same time, the global rollout of the internet, telecommunication,
(start of) commodity videoconferencing, broadband and realtime data exchange,
etc. enabled the outsourcing and offshoring of large and growing segments
of blue and white collar jobs, and much increased fungibility of variously
skilled labor altogether.
On that foundation, a lot of things will appear as badly constructed.
Or from a different angle, given that foundation, how would you arrange
for things to be well constructed?
likbez -> cm...
I would view 9/11 as a perfect cure for dot-com bust. Soon after invasion
of Iraq stock market returned to almost precrash levels. War is the health
of stock market. And since probably 1998 nobody cared about real economy
anyway.
Also housing boom started around this period as conscious, deliberate
effort of Fed to blow the bubble to cure the consequences of the crash at
all costs and face the day of reckoning later (without Mr. Greenspan at
the helm)
reason said...
The problem in thinking here is the equilibrium paradigm. Equilibrium
NEVER exists. If there is a glut the price falls below the marginal cost/revenue
point, if the seller is desperate enough it falls to zero! Ignoring disequilibrium
dynamics means this obvious (it should be obvious) point is simply ignored.
The assumption of general equilibrium leads to the assumption of marginal
productivity driving wages. You are not worth what you produce, you are
worth precisely what somewhat else would accept to do your job.
Lafayette -> reason...
I could not agree more. A Market-Economy is a dynamic in constant disequilibrium,
changing positively and negatively around a mean. The mean is very rarely
an "equilibrium".
likbez -> reason...
Never say never. There some stationary points at which equilibrium
probably exists for a short period of time. But as the whole system has
positive feedback loop built-in and is unstable by definition. So you are
right in a sense that disequilibrium is the "normal" state of such a system
and equilibrium is an exception.
reason said...
And the problem is more growth, is more growth is a trick we cannot
always do in a finite resource technologically sophisticated world. (At
least not growth as it is currently seen.) We need to start thinking in
much longer term time scales. Saying that we have enough oil for 30 years,
is not optimistic - it is an imminent crisis - or do we want our grandchildren
to see the end of the world?
The analogy with Trotskyism, which is also a secular religion here are so evident, that they can't
be missed. And that explains why it is so tenacious: all cults are extremely tenacious and very difficult
to eradiate.
Notable quotes:
"... As the neoliberal revolution instigated by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980 has spread, however,
Polanyi has been rediscovered. His great book – now republished with a foreword by Joseph Stiglitz –
has attracted a new generation of readers. ..."
"... The cult of free market fundamentalism has become so normative in our times, and economics
as a discipline so hidebound and insular, that reading Polanyi today is akin to walking into a stiff
gust of fresh air. We can suddenly see clear, sweeping vistas of social reality. Instead of the mandarin,
quantitative and faux-scientific presumptions of standard economics – an orthodoxy of complex illusions
about "autonomous" markets – Polanyi explains how markets are in fact embedded in a complex web of social,
cultural and historical realities. ..."
"... Markets can only work, for example, if political and legal institutions contrive to transform
people, land and money into assets that can be bought and sold. Polanyi calls these "fictional commodities"
because people, land and money are not in fact commodities. People and land have their own existence
and purposes apart from the market – and money is a social institution, even if many pretend that gold
is a self-evident medium of value. ..."
"... Block and Somers point to a closed and coherent ideational scheme that knits together several
key belief systems. The first is the idea that the laws of nature govern human society, and thus the
workings of the economy are seen as a biological and evolutionary inevitability. A second theme is the
idea of "theoretical realism," a belief that the theoretical schema is more true and enduring than any
single piece of empirical evidence, and thus one can argue from the claims of theory and not from facts.
..."
"... Finally, a "conversion narrative" enables free marketeers tell to neutralize and delegitimate
any contrary arguments, and enabling them to introduce its alternative story. This approach is routinely
used to re-cast the reasons (and blame) for poverty. ..."
"... What makes The Power of Market Fundamentalism so illuminating is its patient, careful reconstruction
of these recurring and deceptive polemical patterns. The wealthy invoke the same rhetorical strategies
again and again over the course of hundreds of years in extremely different contexts. With their mastery
of an enormous contemporary literature, Block and Somers document the remarkable parallels and show
just how deep and durable Polanyi's analysis truly is ..."
One of the great economists of the twentieth century had the misfortune of publishing his magnum
opus, The Great Transformation, in 1944, months before the inauguration of a new era
of postwar economic growth and consumer culture. Few people in the 1940s or 1950s wanted to hear
piercing criticisms of "free markets," let alone consider the devastating impacts that markets tend
to have on social solidarity and the foundational institutions of civil society. And so for decades
Polanyi remained something of a curiosity, not least because he was an unconventional academic with
a keen interest in the historical and anthropological dimensions of economics.
As the neoliberal revolution instigated by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980 has spread, however,
Polanyi has been rediscovered. His great book – now republished with a foreword by Joseph Stiglitz
– has attracted a new generation of readers.
But how to make sense of Polanyi's work with all that has happened in the past 70 years? Why does
he still speak so eloquently to our contemporary problems? For answers, we can be grateful that we
have The Power
of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi's Critique, written by Fred Block and Margaret R. Somers,
and published last year. The book is a first-rate reinterpretation of Polanyi's work, giving it a
rich context and commentary. Polanyi focused on the deep fallacies of economistic thinking and its
failures to understand society and people as they really are. What could be more timely?
The cult of free market fundamentalism has become so normative in our times, and economics
as a discipline so hidebound and insular, that reading Polanyi today is akin to walking into a stiff
gust of fresh air. We can suddenly see clear, sweeping vistas of social reality. Instead of the mandarin,
quantitative and faux-scientific presumptions of standard economics – an orthodoxy of complex illusions
about "autonomous" markets – Polanyi explains how markets are in fact embedded in a complex web of
social, cultural and historical realities.
Markets can only work, for example, if political and legal institutions contrive to transform
people, land and money into assets that can be bought and sold. Polanyi calls these "fictional commodities"
because people, land and money are not in fact commodities. People and land have their own existence
and purposes apart from the market – and money is a social institution, even if many pretend that
gold is a self-evident medium of value.
Notwithstanding these realities, capitalist societies ahve created these fictional commodities.
People have in effect been transformed into units of "labor" that can be bought and sold in the market,
and discarded when their value is depleted. Land, too, is treated as a market asset that has no connection
to a larger, living ecosystem or human community. Inevitably, people and users of land (and ecosystems
themselves) rebel against their treatment as raw commodities. The result is a permanent counter-movement
against those who insist upon treating people and land as commodities.
Unlike Keynes, who was willing to accept some of these economic illusions in order to have political
impact, Polanyi rejected them as a recipe for a dangerous and unachievable utopianism. That is in
fact what has emerged over the past several generations as business ideologues have advanced quasi-religious
visions of free market fundamentalism. The planet's natural systems and our communities simply cannot
fulfill these utopian dreams of endless economic growth, vast consumption of resources and the massive
social engineering. And yet it continues.
Polanyi was courageous enough to strip away the pretenses that the economy is a "force of nature"
that cannot be stopped. The economy, he said, is an "instituted process," not a natural one, and
it can only survive through massive governmental interventions and cultural regimentation. The free
market system is hardly autonomous and self-executing. It requires enormous amounts of government
purchasing, research subsidies, legal privileges, regulatory agencies to enhance fairness and public
trust, military interventions to secure access to resources and markets, and the sabotage of democratic
processes that might threaten investments and market growth. The 2008 financial crisis revealed in
outrageous detail how financial markets are anything but autonomous.
So what accounts for the insidious power of market fundamentalism and its illusions? Why do its
premises remain intact and influential in the face of so much contrary evidence?
Block and Somers point to a closed and coherent ideational scheme that knits together several
key belief systems. The first is the idea that the laws of nature govern human society, and thus
the workings of the economy are seen as a biological and evolutionary inevitability. A second theme
is the idea of "theoretical realism," a belief that the theoretical schema is more true and enduring
than any single piece of empirical evidence, and thus one can argue from the claims of theory and
not from facts. Free market narratives assert their own self-validating claims to what is true;
epistemological categories trump all empirical challenges.
Finally, a "conversion narrative" enables free marketeers tell to neutralize and delegitimate
any contrary arguments, and enabling them to introduce its alternative story. This approach is routinely
used to re-cast the reasons (and blame) for poverty. Instead of acknowledging institutional
or structural explanations for why many people are poor, the free market narrative boldly attacks
government for making people poor through aid programs. Government programs supposedly have
a perverse effect, aggravating, not aleviating poverty. The poor are cast as morally responsible
– along with government – for their own sorry circumstances. Thus, a higher minimum wage is perverse,
say free market champions, because it will hurt the poor rather than help them.
What makes The Power of Market Fundamentalism so illuminating is its patient, careful reconstruction
of these recurring and deceptive polemical patterns. The wealthy invoke the same rhetorical strategies
again and again over the course of hundreds of years in extremely different contexts. With their
mastery of an enormous contemporary literature, Block and Somers document the remarkable parallels
and show just how deep and durable Polanyi's analysis truly is .
"Neoliberalism relies upon the relentless shredding of the social fabric,
that mutual interdependence and reliance that people have on each other
as members of that entity that Margaret Thatcher called non-existent: society."
Before I consider the question here of neoliberalism's
future, let me first clarify what I mean by neoliberalism. As
Gary Teeple has succinctly put it, neoliberalism is the political expression
of globalization. It is, in other words, the ideology and politics of furthering
market forces' dominance domestically and internationally and in all public
and private matters. When I say "public", in all fairness I should clarify that
the public realm doesn't actually exist for neoliberals – they scoff at such
a thing and proudly claim that everyone is only out for himself or herself.
This, then, is the philosophical basis for neoliberalism:
Adam Smith's invisible hand. Everyone acting selfishly will produce the best
possible world. Both major U.S. political parties are believers in neoliberalism
and the differences they have between them regarding economic policy is over
how and to what extent market forces should openly drive matters, with the Democrats
making mostly rhetorical passes to the need to protect middle class people.
(Evidently, the working class does not exist in the U.S., judging by the Democratic
Party's rhetoric.)
Neoliberals' answer to all ills and concerns is privatization.
When calamities ensue, whether financial, medical, political, environmental,
or otherwise (e.g., Katrina, the BP Oil catastrophe, the scandal at Walter Reed
Army Medical Center, the corruption of Bernie Madoff and Tom DeLay…), their
instantaneous response is that this disaster only proves the need for more privatization,
less regulation, and more market forces. In other words, we need more of the
very things that in actuality brought on the crisis or at least exacerbated
the crisis in the first place. We can see this, for example, in the measures
taken to resolve the 2008 financial crisis, the crisis that Treasury Secretary
– and former Goldman Sachs head – Hank Paulsen secretly told some U.S. congressmen
and women would cause martial law to be declared if they didn't alter their
first vote of saying no to the massive bailout, a vote these representatives
registered because of the massive outcry of opposition from their constituents
to the bailout. Because the banks and financial institutions who were responsible
for this crisis were "too big to fail", they must be shored up with massive,
historic loans and giveaways which these giants of finance have turned around
to make themselves even bigger with and therefore even more necessary to be
saved when their profligate ways bring on the next financial crisis.
Market forces are animated by and driven by the pursuit
of profit. And since profit comes about through driving down wages and reducing
or eliminating benefits for those outside the very top ranks, and through greater
job and income insecurity and volatility, and by increasing indebtedness for
those who are not one of the neoliberal elect, then the logic of neoliberalism
rests upon the logic of dispossession. In the U.S. the credit card debt load
is famously large, $828 billion as of July 2010. What is less well-known is
that student loan debt is now even higher: over $850 billion in student loan
debt is being saddled upon the backs of working class and middle-class students
who have dwindling prospects of getting a decent job or even a job at all after
graduation. Take away decent jobs, send those jobs abroad and downsize the workforce
here at home, but promise them if they stay in school and get a college degree
or graduate degree they will surely make back their loans. Meanwhile, take full
advantage of their troubles.
The logic of profit dictates exactly this. Neoliberalism
relies upon the relentless shredding of the social fabric, that mutual interdependence
and reliance that people have on each other as members of that entity that Margaret
Thatcher called non-existent: society. Is it true, in fact, as the Iron Lady
liked to say: TINA (There is No Alternative)?
Which brings us to the question of neoliberalism's future.
How long can neoliberalism prevail in face of the damage it does by its very
logic and operation? These are not incidental or accidental problems – they
are the fundamental rationale of the system itself. Judging by the U.S., where
neoliberalism reigns supreme, unchallenged and indeed endorsed by the two major
political parties, it looks as secure as ever, with the GOP and the Tea Parties
and its Pied Piper, angry Glenn Beck, its cutting edge. The Democrats, for their
part, under the man of "hope and change", Obama, are notable for how much further
they have carried forward the ignoble and egregious departures from the rule
of law that marked the Bush regime, institutionalizing these lawless actions
of indefinite detention, openly ordering citizens' assassinations, calling openly
for Julian Assange's death, and asserting their right to spy on everyone all
of the time – all these and more are part and parcel of the political dimension
of their unholy holy war of terrorism.
Here is the problem put into as small a nutshell as I
can. Neoliberalism brings on disasters, sometimes by deliberate design (as Naomi
Klein has pointed out), and sometimes without conscious intent, through the
workings of the very system and the dynamics of its logic. These disasters are
on the micro and macro-levels. On the micro-level individuals fall through the
increasingly gaping holes in the social safety net. On the macro-level we have
local, regional, and global calamities such as global warming. The logic
of the war of terror is such that terrorist incidents, whether abortive or not,
reinforce the war of terror itself. Thus, without needing anyone to consciously
instigate a false flag attack, the institutional and ideological purposes of
the war of terror are served by anti-state terrorist incidents.
How long will this continue? It is impossible to
say with any precision. It is certainly possible that the neoliberals will cause
disasters on a scale that could make the planet oppressive to live in – physically
as well as psychologically. They have succeeded in creating a very large and
extremely powerful right-wing echo chamber through their rightwing media empire.
Those who are not happy with the reactionary politics of the Right and those
of the Democrats are therefore outgunned, surrounded in some respects by the
armies of fear, ignorance, and the cynically misled.
A real alternative to this is hard to imagine for those
who have not been around long enough to see a real alternative to capitalism,
and those who are old enough to remember this are mostly unconvinced at this
point that an alternative to capitalism can be brought into being.
This much I can say with certainty based on a reading
of history: the conditions that create the awful things that we now see around
us and growing more menacing practically by the day – the assassination and
attempted assassination of public officials in Tucson, Arizona this month, the
abrogation of core civil liberties such as habeas corpus, the express departure
from the rule of law, the pre-emptive arrests of demonstrators and charging
people who are whistleblowers as terrorists and open calls for their murder,
the continued detention of 173 people at Gitmo, etc. – are also the
conditions that create the possibility for revolutionary changes in a positive
direction.
The election of Obama, a black, first term U.S. Senator,
occurred because millions despised Bush and Cheney and mistakenly believed that
the solution was as simple as pulling a lever for Obama. The system had to reach
out further than ever to pull people back in who were in danger of spinning
out of the political control of the powers that be. Many of those who were so
misled are now re-examining their mistakes. If enough of them wake up to what
lessons this makes possible for them to see, that elections do not a solution
offer, and if enough of them do what they need to do, then the whole political
atmosphere could change dramatically.
It doesn't take a whole lot of people to start this process
of popular protest (which can and should occur in diverse and numerous forms)
in earnest. It takes some very courageous people and larger numbers of people
who are willing to do something in the right direction, to support and come
to the defense of those who are standing up forthrightly, with their words,
actions, and resources. We have that core, but that core of people needs to
be joined by more, many more.
The question is which values will take the fore and which
values will set the terms. This is a fight that has to occur on many different
levels, including in the realm of theory and in political battles.
Raising people's sights
and their fighting spirit must happen.
Our adversaries must lie shamelessly and use coercion
and outright murderous violence to get their way. They are extremely vulnerable
to exposure of their schemes. This is and will be a very hard and perilous struggle.
Even if we do nothing, the deluge will still engulf us,
except then if we have done nothing, we can only drown. In the alternative,
we can have a fighting chance to wrest a radically different future from this
awful mess.
As Molly Ivins, bless her dearly departed soul, wrote
on September
1, 2005:
This is a column for everyone in the path of Hurricane
Katrina who ever said, "I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in politics," or,
"There's nothing I can do about it," or, "Eh, they're all crooks anyway."
Nothing to do with me, nothing to do with my life, nothing
I can do about any of it. Look around you this morning. I suppose the National
Rifle Association would argue, "Government policies don't kill people, hurricanes
kill people." Actually, hurricanes plus government policies kill people.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
