Three quotations from the last day's papers and publications do, when combined, explain a lot. The first is from Martin Wolf of the FT:
In a world in which the private sectors of big economies suffer chronic demand deficiency syndrome, we are sure to see a hunt for such scraps of demand as exist
The second is from Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis:
Europe's crisis is far less likely to give birth to a better alternative to capitalism than it is to unleash dangerously regressive forces that have the capacity to cause a humanitarian bloodbath, while extinguishing the hope for any progressive moves for generations to come.
I think both actually tell the same story. It is that capitalism as we know it is dying because it cannot sustain itself on the basis of the inequality it has created. But those in control of it will fight to preserve their wealth, and will have no compunction about what they might sweep away in the process.
In that case the Church of England Bishops are right when they say:
In the UK as a whole, numerous polls show that a majority of people think that it will make no difference whichever party is in power. Our democracy is failing because successive administrations have done little to address the trends which are most influential in shaping ordinary people's lives.
We do need a new moral vision. Capitalism is dying. We have to dare to imagine what will replace it.
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:
Isn’t it more true to say that Neo-Liberalism is dying and it will most likely be replaced by another form of Capitalism? Which still allows the question: what will it look like?
Sadly Alex, I fear that it is capitalism that is dying, not Neo-liberalism. The onslaught of the Neo-liberal right, who hide like a terrorist in a school yard within the ranks of traditional Conservatism, has wrought its near demise.
The term Neo-feudalism (which I first saw used by Andrew Dickie on this blog) better describes the aspirations of the Neo-liberal conspiracy to return the world to the state that immediately preceded the rise of the bourgeoisie and the nascence of what we recognise today as capitalism.
The dazzling legerdemain of the Neo-liberal concensus has been to pass itself off as a form of conservatism thus hiding its true intents. Neo-liberalism is in fact the mortal enemy of a system that requires a literate and empowered public to provide the consumer markets which are its life-blood. Simply replace the tyrant kings and robber barons with the modern corporate Kleptocracy and you have the perfect vision of the ‘Neo-feudalist’ dream.
Neo-liberalism has inherent within it the seeds of destruction of capitalism which is why the ideals and objectives of the movement do not stand up to scrutiny. This becomes very apparent when, as Mr Varoufakis suggests, Marxism is used as a prism through which to scrutinise and challenge ‘neo-liberal capitalism’.
The manipulation of tax and environmental legislation, the driving down of wages and removal of worker protections serve only the chosen few, and the inevitable deflationary cycles that will result will sweep away the traditional bourgeoisie. Only those with the fiscal reserves to survive such shocks will survive. For the rest of us freedom will be replaced by serfdom.
But Yanis Varoufakis is also right in his assertion that revolution is not the answer. Little good ever came from a revolution, and what did came at great cost.
If an answer is to be found it should be sought not in revolution, but in the evolution of the system we have.
Much of the intellectual groundwork has been done for the evolution of a moral and socially just, environmentally sustainable model of capitalism , not least by the likes of Richard, both in his role of tax justice campaigner but also as a member of the GND forum. At the NEF Anna Coote has just published an excellent blueprint for a new, just social settlement.
But in order for the clarity and wisdom of this work to become more than just political or economic theory it will require a new socio-political movement that abandons the traditional Left/Right labels and instead redraws the political dividing lines, horizontally not vertically.
Unencumbered by historical signifiers, such a movement could set about making the case for a new political philosophy that speaks to the needs and aspirations of society as a whole. Finding consensus would, I suspect, be far easier than it might appear. Much of the tribal loyalty that governs voting patterns is driven by perception rather than reality.
The middle classes may have aspire to the rhetoric of the Right, but in actuality, their reality has suffered disproportionately as a result of rising house prices, a lack of rent control and the privatisation of the rail networks. Conversely, it is a long time since the Labour Party could honestly profess to understand, let alone represent, the working classes that once delivered it’s its landslide victories. The truth is that most voters care much less about the mechanisms and ideologies of state than they do about the capability of that state to deliver security in their lives. A retired private school teacher may perceive their best interests as lying with an avowedly anti-statist party, but they will vote for the party that protects their retirement cottage from flooding. So too will the dustbin man who sees the opportunity for a decent job for his child in the same policy. A sales and marketing department would call it ‘selling the benefits’
It’s all about making the case for a progressive and inclusive model of capitalism.
It is too late, I fear, for such a movement to emerge before the next election, but I hope that we see a coalescence of such a party before 2020.
Perhaps we should think of it as the 2020 Vision.
And how miserable it is that a once leading paper “The Times” should insult its readers today with its bias against the Christian bishops for seeking a more socially just society and daring to get political – with its daily pro-Tory headlines, its anti-bishop cartoon for ‘prying’ into politics, its anti-bishop leader, and it’s highly selective daily anti-Miliband items- the paper surely is now a mouthpiece of Murdoch and so pro- Conservative as not to be taken seriously by many of its readers, the intelligent and professional journalists too. It’s aim to silence all criticism of the current inequality debate in the modern UK and create a news agenda of sickening acquiescence and compliance as we go into the election period.
I admit I do not read The Times
And yesterday refused £500 to comment for the Sun
As long as I can remember the Times has been a joke – just The Sun with a few more syllables in some of the words. Murdoch bought the paper in what – 1981? Not sure what it was like before that but it’s been right wing nonsense since then, certainly. Well done Richard for refusing to take the Murdoch shilling!
I’m probably repeating what Alex is saying but I define myself as a capitalist – just not the kind of capitalism urged by neo-liberals and too many on the Right Wing of politics.
The kind of capitalism I support acknowledges the stabilising effect of democratic government intervention which can help spark demand when it remains moribund – as now – and head off catastrophic falls in demand when the economy suffers from some sort of shock or the business cycle ends.
Surely those risk takers investing theirs and other peoples money in new projects ought to welcome this mitigation in the huge risks they face? I cannot fathom why they don’t recognise this – indeed refuse to see it all for the sake of saving some tax.
I’ve been a capitalist too by that definition
But remember neoliberal capitalism is not run by risk takers
It is run by rent seeking employees
‘Risk takers versus rent seekers’ – I couldn’t have put it better myself.
10 out of 10.
This page and the Q&A’s should form part of any economics/politics syllabus.