Frankie Boyle is proving himself to be much more than an occasionally foul mouthed comedian in his comment column for the Guardian. As he has said in his latest column:
After the general election, I doubted that anyone would have any hope left at all, any desire to put aside their differences to organise novel methods of resistance. One thing Corbyn's election showed is that there are a lot of people out there with hope. I very much doubt that it can survive the draughty meeting halls, cherished hatreds and bureaucracy of the Labour party.
I have some sympathy with that. There is hope. But there is risk that it may be thwarted by its own optimism. As Aditya Chakrabortty has put it, also in the Guardian today:
The great mistake made by the mainstream left and right, even by NGOs such as Oxfam, is in imagining that the super-rich, now enjoying such massive riches, are somehow playing by the same rules as the rest of us. That they are “wealth creators” providing jobs and investment for the rest of us, or that they might give up their tax havens. If that ever were the case, it isn't now.
And there are reasons for that doubt. As the Guardian, again, notes in another Davos linked report:
The richest stand to gain more from the introduction of new technology than those in poorer sections of society, according to a report which warns that policymakers may be required to intervene to tackle the widening inequality.
The so-called fourth industrial revolution, following on from the introduction of steam power, electricity and electronics, will have less of an impact on developed economies, such as Switzerland, Singapore and the UK. Emerging markets — notably in parts of Latin America and India — will suffer when artificial intelligence and robots become widely used, reducing the competitive advantage of their cheap labour.
As that same report also makes clear, the middle classes will be hit badly. Have no doubt that the political impacts of that are significant, but have also been anticipated. It is not by chance that David Cameron is working so hard to lead an assault on democracy right now, whether by gagging unions and NGOs, limiting the franchise, undermining the Lords, reducing the number of parliamentary seats and instituting aggressive boundary changes. And he is not alone: I have long argued that the Big 4 accountants are the greatest co-ordinated threat to democracy as they underpin the architecture of tax havens.
What does all this mean? First, that hope survives in a hostile environment, although I believe that despite Frankie Boyle's pessimism it will continue to do so for what nourishes it is unrelated to the forces that oppose it.
Second, that things can, and may, get worse.
And third, that if they do it is unlikely that the continuum that UBS base their projections upon will exist. The history of political economy is one of unforeseen disruptive events (such as 2008) that result in significant changes in direction in social, economic and political history. UBS (and most politicians) ignore that.
The reality is that these disruptive events take time to absorb into the collective narrative before sense is made of them and a new collective norm is established, before another disruptive event occurs. The risk is that on this occasion (and maybe in others to come) the resistance to change by the combined forces of collective wealth has been so strong that the absorption of necessary change has been strongly resisted by those in power. We have not, for example, really seen the beginning of many of the required and planned post-2008 banking reforms as yet despite which fact the next period of disruption may already be upon us.
That is significant: if true what it suggests is that the feedback loop that ensures that the necessary processes of change that are needed to absorb the consequences of disruption may themselves be malfunctioning. If that happens then the disruption may not result in relatively smooth change but will instead create a wave of politically disruptive noise in the system whose consequences are hard to predict and which may presage a more significant disruption or paradigm shift.
This is not necessarily the case but I certainly see it as possible and that possibility is in itself both cause for hope and deep concern: no one knows how these things will work out and history has not always been kind. But what we have to work for is the possibility that disruptive change can not only be benign but beneficial. That is the definition of hope. I think it exists.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Love this article. Just about every word resonates with me.
Thank you
My early morning efforts are not in vain then
Your early morning efforts are certainly not in vain, Richard, and are, I think, spot on (as was Aditya’s piece in The Guardian – and something that has needed saying for a long time).
Where I think you’re particularly accurate is in your analysis that the feedback loop (or loops) of disruption are malfunctioning/have failed. Indeed they have, but just as you point out the deliberate acts what Cameron and co are undertaking to undermine democracy (a feedback loop, of course) such that they (ie. the elite) are able to largely control the outcome of the democratic process, so the failure of feedback loops more widely is no accident. And I’d argue that we can see (and we should recognise) that Davos and other events of similar kind have been – and will continue to be – mechanisms for planning the suppression of “disruptive” feedback loops.
Another example whose work we observed on a regular basis last year was the ECB, and long before that the IMF had mastered the art of planning and then implementing/supporting the suppression of disruptive feedback loops. Ditto the World Bank.
In short, what has been constructed over many years is a whole system of increasingly interrelated mechanisms designed to “malfunction” or interfere with the operation of the societal and economic feedback loops that were accepted as necessary from 1945 until the 1970s. Many of these – such as the gathering at Davos – have been consistently presented as benign, as “stabalising” mechanisms, and so on. But what has become increasingly obvious since 2008, both through visible actions (such as the suppression of democratic intent in Greece) and much less visible ones (leading to outcomes such as the watering down of banking regulation, the neutering of the FCA, corporate capture of HMRC, etc), is that these mechanisms are far from benign. They are instruments of control by and for the elite. And, perhaps surprisingly to many, they have actually become stronger and more brazen in their activity since 2008, and I’m in no doubt that whatever disruption the next economic crisis creates this system and its supporters are already preparing to use it to further advance control and oppression.
So, Aditya is spot on to point out that the agents and interested parties of the elite don’t play by the rules that the majority of us assume apply – not least because they believe (rightly in most cases) that they make the rules. So, lets stop the self delusion and deceit and instead recognise the value of the old adage “know your enemy”.
Ivan
Agreed
Although it is interesting that it is said to be Davis that is spooking markets this morning
They may not be as clever as they think
Richard
I don’t know how you keep it up day after day.
That was written at 2am when my cold woke me up so I did a bit of writing whilst having a cup of tea
I write anywhere anytime – one for tomorrow was being crafted on the tube this morning
It’s just what I do
I cannot imagine a life not writing
I am somewhat pessimistic: “disruptive change can not only be benign but beneficial” cuts both ways: it can, but it might not, and there’s always someone who profits; they are likely to be the players with resources and an asset base untouched by the disruption.
It is possible that the structural weaknesses in banking remain unaddressed because of short-sighted and self-destructive folly by the bankers and the governments they buy; but it is entirely possible that someone views it from a position of advantage and will profit – at our expense – from the liquidity crunch and the ensuing transfers of wealth.
Even, or especially, if the result is a significant net contraction in the World economy and a widespread collapse in living standards.
Your last para is what I fear
And I predict it will be a disruptive event
Hi Richard, I’ve been looking out for your stuff for a year or so now, since I really started drilling down through the net to get some ‘extra curricular’ info. If there is a ‘disruptive event’ there are going to be people who will bear some considerable suffering, largely because society, deprived of the last shreds of social conscience by the current regime’s inhumane antics, will not have the real means to help.
Are you familiar with the oil or book ‘Seven Days In May’.
Seven Days in May is an American political thriller motion picture about a military-political cabal’s planned takeover of the United States government in reaction to the president’s negotiation of a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Directed by John Frankenheimer, it stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, and Ava Gardner, and was released in February 1964. The screenplay was written by Rod Serling based on the novel of the same name by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, published in September 1962.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May
My concern is Jeremy Corbyn represents an even greater threat to the industrial Military complex than the scenario in this film. So if the powers that be can get away so blatantly with what is happening now, can they get away with a ‘Very British Coup? Is this alarmist nonsense?
Best regards
TGB
Alarmist?
Not at all
Governments are being imposed in the EU and no one shouts
Why not here?
“Are you familiar with the film or book ‘Seven Days In May’. Oil?
No
Frankie Boyle is a very literate version of the foul-mouthed comedian-no Bernard Manning he!
There is a psychological tendency for people to create a sense of ‘norm’ even when there is no return to it-I think, as James Galbraith put it, we’re in an ‘end of normal’ time.
Corbyn/Sanders/Syriza/Podemos are a sign of something but we can see that the World Bank/IMF/ECB/Fed/BoE are trying to carry on as if we can keep the same system going.
I often think (rightly or wrongly) that on the micro level it’s a bit like an individual who needs change in their lives but carries on with the old patterns until a nervous breakdown takes place that forces the issue. Societies that have a breakdown are very messy and dangerous affairs and can go for extremism to bolster dubious psychological security and ‘meaning.’ There are some signs of this (France/Poland/Hungary/ even Sweden!).
If we act intelligently this need not happen but I’m not hopeful because those who are the wealth syphoners will not countenance change and loosen the grip on financialisation and the debt instruments that keep nations in poverty and human assets exploited.
If Keynes were to reincarnate-we’d be hearing from him about the madness of things! He’d also be able to point us to ways of ending the ‘beggar thy neighbour’ appraoch to international trade.
Agree with a great deal of that Simon
Can the global financial system survive another 2008 Lehman Bros crash? Do the powers that be have such a short a memory? It has taken decades for climate change to be taken seriously by the Davos attendees – when will economic sanity come to the fore?
It can survive – but it will be tough
That assumes that the next crash is of previous dimensions.
Unfortunately, and undercover, the financial system is in a far more serious condition than last time.
The state of banking is certainly much worse
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. JFK
Are we living in ‘interesting’ times?
Yes
I don’t know how more of the same (regular QE) would work this time. There is so much cheap money around, yet demand is sluggish and falling.
While the financial system – just – might survive another round of massive corporate failures, would the ‘real’ economy? Looking at the ONS figures for employment today, it seems to me that, while unemployment is historically low, there are lots of people on low wages, temporary/precarious jobs and/or self-employed (as an Uber driver?).
If regular QE won’t work and neoliberals can’t even countenance (because of their narrow and withered worldview) any sort of productive investment, what happens to these people?
I don’t have much hope for the Labour party based on their performance so far. Nor do I expect some sort of Podemos- or Syriza-style radical party to emerge from nowhere.
In my darker moments, I fear that the neoliberals have ‘won’. They control the medium and the messages. The story is written. They have changed humanity forever (as was Thatcher’s infamous goal). And they will only stop when their money ceases to have any value any more because society has degraded and disintegrated to a point where even they face ruin.
Fortunately, these moments don’t last forever. I usually find some solace in reading this blog. I do wonder what I – with, if I am being generous, a workmanlike level of knowledge of economics and finance – can do to change things?
If I could be so bold to suggest a topic for a blog post, why not give us laypersons a few practical suggestions on how to further our shared cause? I expect the comments would be very interesting to read, too.
For now, it’s worth following Gramsci’s philosophy and be ‘an optimist of the will; a pessimist of the spirit’.
At least some (well perhaps only one) successful capitalists understand the problem the world is now facing from the system they have benefited so much from, and that the pitchforks are coming their way.
Sadly his proposed capitalist solutions are only going to compound the situation as he fails to address (or understand) that capitalism itself is the problem.
Any system that drives the increased concentration of wealth to rich/powerful/lucky people is bound to fail eventually as it fails to meet the needs of the majority of the population. It is only a matter of time but history shows that tribalism, feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, communism have all failed to meet the needs of ordinary people because they would not/could not share the rewards equitably.
When more plutocrats like him realise they will all eventually be the victims of their own undeserved success, it will be too late for them to repent and be forgiven by the masses they think they rule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8
He also had an interesting take on tax which didn’t fit in with the American neo-liberal agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
Hmmmm…….
For my sins I completed an MBA (Maybe Best Avoided – thank you Henry Minztberg) in order to keep me employable in early 2015 and one of the theories we looked at concerning change is ‘path dependency’.
Path dependency (PD) in a nutshell is a theory that explains resistance to change – the ‘This is how we have always done things around here and forever’ attitude.
This resistance to change is driven by history and memory that are somehow embedded in the culture of a society (whether a work place society or a country’s society or polity). Ultimately therefore PD is embedded in people (and filing systems).
In terms of path dependency, it is change-forces from without (external) that can threaten PD. These are known by some theorists as ‘punctuations’ (honest!).
The fact that these punctuations come from external sources is important because being external and not part of the stable culture where the PD exists, they are not controllable or predictable and their impact on the PD is hard to anticipate but it usually results in some form of change which may be minor or major but be in no doubt that some change will be made and endure as a result.
I have been fascinated and also appalled at the response I have seen to the 2008 crash by the institutions of the financial sector and our polity.
2008 at first looks like such a ‘punctuation’.
But to me, these institutions have got away with it with the collusion of another institution – that of the media. Perhaps also the accounting ‘profession’. There has not been much change.
They rode the public outcry initially; they found other suspects (immigrants, the disabled, the low paid or jobless) ; they ducked and dived over better regulation and as Satyajit Das noted in the film ‘Inside Job’ – just expected things to get back to normal very quickly. Because this was normal to them – of course.
So the conclusion I have come to is that 2008 was not a punctuation – the uncontrollable external force needed to break the grip on path dependency. Why?
Because the 2008 crash was essentially something that happened WITHIN the system – not external to it. OK – it had external consequences – demand dropped, panic spread, people were laid of – all causing public anger.
However, the Government provided money to solve the issue that was actually put back into the system that created the problems in the first place – the remedy was therefore internalised so that WE – or rather our Governments enabled the financial sector to regain control over what they had lost control of in the first place. That resulted in Governments losing leverage over the banks to achieve real change IMHO. It is also why I think there should be a state owned banking system operating alongside the private banks. Those stupid greedy banks should have all been allowed to fail.
So what actual punctuations (events external to a PD system) might actually change things?
Well, one might be social upheaval: revolution (let’s say it huh?). That enough people just get fed up.
The other is likely to be environmental. There is no arguing with mother nature. In fact this punctuation might even precipitate the one I mentioned a few lines above (social unrest).
Readers may say ‘But PSR – that’s too dark – where’s the hope?’.
Well I hope that my analysis is wrong. Maybe the younger people who have been worked to death at school, loaded down with debt from education and denied homes to live in may actually turn around and say ‘We’ve had enough of this actually’ and these future bankers, politicians, policy makers will change things.
I certainly hope so!
Interesting
And provocative
I have no problem with either
Good evening Richard. An excellent article with great responses with which I agree whole-heartedly. Going to the source of the article, Frankie Boyle, it just occurred to me (doh!)that maybe the PLP is missing a trick here. Most (not all) stand-up comedians are left leaning and critical of the Establishment. Chris Rock has said that stand-up comedy should always be punching upwards. Comedy, satire etc. have always been very effective tools in demolishing political hierarchies, pointing to the Emperor without his clothes. Even fairly mainstream humour like ‘Spitting Image’ wittily succeeded in stripping celebrities of their egos, reaching a surprisingly large audience (15 million at its peak). My point is that the PLP should maybe ‘recruit’ a team of professional comedians to develop a long-term (4 year) strategy of trivialising and demolishing the government’s failures via a wide spectrum of media and live venues around the country. It would be a continual drip, drip process. Cameron has shown how much easier it is to deride his opposition with typical public school sarcasm (ref. today’s PMQs) than to engage in a constructive dialogue, so why not fight fire with fire? Stewart Lee and Frankie Boyle would surely join such a team. Just a random thought. Good night all!
I could not agree more