This comment was made on the blog last night by someone I do not know called Chris Smith. With his or her permission (I do not know which) I share it in full:
I suggest that as well as developing an infrastructure of organisation the People's Assembly needs to build up an intellectual infrastructure. So often the left has been characterised as sentimental and good hearted, but unable to deal with the reality of economic necessity. Of course, this ‘economic necessity' is a delusion, a piece of misplaced common sense on a par with the perceived flatness of the Earth. But the Left needs to be able to explain why this is so. It needs to be able to seize the commanding heights of the argument and to be in a position to rebut the standard attacks. Only if this is the case will its understanding become accepted as part of the common wisdom, and thus make possible consistent democratic support for the practical reconstruction that will be necessary in Britain and elsewhere.
Fortunately events have conspired to make this possible. The infallible markets school of economics has been revealed as nothing more than a dead theology (except perhaps amongst the goggle eyed!), real Keynesianism has been vindicated, and such things as Modern Money Theory supply new insights into the real workings of the economic system.
Perhaps the People's assembly could devote some time — set up a work stream — to develop such an argument, make sure of its intellectual consistency and empirical validity, and then — hardest part of all — try to express in language that ordinary people can grasp. This is something that the Labour Party has failed to do for many years, with the consequences that are now visible to all. Richard, I recall that a few days ago one of your commentators asked you for guidance on how he could counter the argument put forward by his local Tory MP that any expansion of spending by means of increased borrowing will inevitably lead to an increase in interest rates, and thus the cost of mortgages. You pointed him to the writings of Paul Krugman. If what I suggest is done, then your correspondent would not need to ask.
I accept that this work would be very hard and doubtless contentious. However, as our rentier opponents would say, it will bring very big dividends in the future.
To some degree I see this as the work of the Class Think Tank, where I am proud to be on the Advisory Board and for whom I have written. But the challenge is a real one.
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:
We could do with a slogan which no one could counter. What about something like “Workers buy => jobs grow”; “Full employment works”? Sorry, they’re rubbish, but there is an underlying truth about jobs and people spending their wages and creating new jobs – that firms don’t invest and employ unless they can see wages increasing and being spent – the order is not invest first and hope for the best.
Work out of recession
I would suggest “For the Common Good”
I am afraid that I am hoping for something a bit more ambitious than just a slogan. We need to pull together the various strands of real world economics into a consistent whole, and then express it in a way that can be readily understood by the man or woman who thinks that Keynes may have been the bloke who designed the well known new town in Buckinghamshire.
Quite a big job one might say. However, the Emperor has been wandering around without a stitch on for some years now, so it’s about time that this was pointed out.
I agree – sloganism is not enough
Chris they used to say if have three economists in a room they will have four opinions. That may be a cautious estimate but:
1) there is enough consistency to challenge and unthrone noe-liberal economics
2) there are enough points of agreement to have some consensus
eg need for regional banks to support local businesses long term
to restrict the power of banks to create money and return that power to the state
to invest for the benefit of society such as housing, alternative energy, scientific research
This could begin to reduce the amount paid in interest on the national debt
to restrict speculative activity in shares-such as long time holders of shares have more voting rights than people who bought them last week-and in derivatives
To work internationally or in the EU on the raft of tax proposals Richard Murphy makes
I’m sure you can improve on this
This is what we’re up against (well, this and a rabidly right-wing press).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/26/generation-y-young-voters-backing-conservatives
You have to be in your forties to have any memory of when Thatcherism wasn’t in the ascendancy and it has truly become the ‘common-sense of the age’ and therefore incontestable. Still, in the 1960s, monetarism was a fringe belief and there was a similar consensus about welfarism, so maybe there is hope of turning this around.
The challenge of libertarianism is not simply that of one economic system against another. As Robert Nozick made clear libertarianism is inimical to democracy and our (British)constitution and system of justice. The description of the model he gave in Anarchy, State & Utopia can be made to seem so logical, so attractive, that the complexities of a system built around the way people actually live appears intrusive. But, Nozick was unable to describe how the transition to a minimal state could be managed.
More attention needs to be paid to the negative corollaries of libertarianism. I for one would be reluctant to take up my ‘tax free’ riches in exchange for my vote. Nor would I welcome the ‘freedom’ to spend my money on services such as a private police force run by a corporation based who knows where. Under libertarianism it is possible to ‘voluntarily’ enter into a contract of bonded servitude. For those with limited economic, physical or mental capacity that may be the only ‘free’ choice available. It is a tactic already employed in south east Asia where child labourers work 7 days a week for 25% below the legal minimum wage. The corporation uses a libertarian excuse – we have no contract with (or responsibility for) the workers only to our shareholders.
Education of the public is vital, but a few lessons in morality might not go amiss in Westminster. It is there that the facilitation of libertarianism takes place.
The question of morality is important. At the core of any movement needs to be the values that it wishes to defend and nourish. I think core human values such as peace, non-violence and truth seem like a legitimate place to start for the People’s Assembly. And I believe this could be the soft under-belly of the neo-liberals; because their values are purely economic at their base. Respect for your fellow human does not come in to their equation.
This is what we need to throw in their face. For the neo-liberals everything comes down to the dollar/pound. It seems to me at times that our world is dominated by money. Everything is tainted by it – medicine (the giant pharmaceutials), law, agriculture and science(corporations such as Monsanto), energy (the petro-chemical companies), government, sport, popular culture and even religion.
The poisonous neoliberal doctrine has infected our society like some incurable disease and like aids in the developing world seems to present an insurmountable problem,the answer seems to me quite simple, change the language . If we develop the discussion and examine who are the beneficiaries in the current economy,we can immediately conclude that it is only a small minority and that they only survive because the rest of us underwrite them. Ever since the first privatization of our shared wealth in utilities we have experienced one privatized scam after another increased prices for shoddier goods, and that has been achieved solely to transfer wealth to a minority .I support the People’s Assembly and believe that the arguments for common sense will eventually prevail,not least because a younger generation will react to how heavily the odds have been stacked against them by the owners of capital who have no geographical loyalty and cruise through the sea of tax havens in their predatory pursuit of wealth which was never going to promote the social achievements that the majority need to thrive in a healthy society.
Michael Hudson has been referring to ‘debt peonage’ but even after the atrocious events of the last decade people cannot grasp that they are in servitude they think they are ‘buying’ houses when in reality they are becoming willing slaves of the banks and real estate manipulation – they can’t see it, which is why people like me, in social housing expect, in the next few years to receive a letter telling me ‘my’ house is being sold off and my money going to a private owner. I think the neo-lib agenda just keeps gathering steam – maybe we have to remember Lenin’s words again: ‘the worse, the better.’ The whole populace is entranced and in a state of advanced narcolepsy and I expect a significant victory for the Tories in the next election. Job Centres are already becoming places where the Ill, poor and vulnerable are shamed and spoken to like members of a lower caste and it just goes on. Despair is too mild a word. As has been said above, to anyone under 40 the neo-liberal world is perceived as ‘that’s the way things are.’
I know Michael Hudson – he supports land value taxation – because it’s the only way to stop the banks collecting the rent which should go to the state. The majority of bank loans are secured on land value – because land is in fixed supply and heavy demand.
I think we need a think-tank on the left with the headcount and the funding level to match the behemoths dominating the centre and right of the UK think tank landscape – IPPR, Demos, Policy Exchange, SMF etc. That could be Compass, CLASS, or the Fabian Society. But it might be time for some consolidation on the left – most of these outfits are under-resourced and hence don’t punch at their full weight.
Agreed
And they also need some grey hair
I always find it amazing that the BBC pulls so many think tank people in aged about 29
or maybe that’s just me getting older – but I see some value to thought based on experience
Funny but as a Non Left person I would agree with this blog. But I thought the
ideology of the Left was Socialism- that word never seems to be mentioned nowadays.
I think what the Left needs are leaders, and practical ones at that, people that can actually run organizations, and not just talk about them.
The difficulty with the word socialism is that it is identified with the idea that the private ownership of assets and the means of production is wrong.
I do not agree: the left now seeks fair income and wealth distribution and the responsible use of resources, but that may be in private as well as public ownership, in my opinion
Social democracy fails to also deliver this message
One of the problems for the left is the lack of a world to embrace this issue
I presume you meant “word” rather than “world” although I can see some meaning in the word world too!
Come on, cannot all the academic brain power of the Left not come up with a word or rather a succinct ideology? I thought ideas were a strength of the Left, practical implementation no, but ideas yes.
In all walks of life it takes skill and effort to translate complicated concepts
into simple messages.But if you want to progress ,you have to try.
What is wrong with Warren Buffet’s ‘This is class war and (his) class are winning.’ ?