I've read Paul Mason's new book, PostCapitalism over the last week or so.
I have not written a review as yet. Take this from Gillian Tett in the FT as fair comment in lieu of my own assembled thoughts, as yet:
[W]hile Mason's ideas might seem crazily idealistic, they are thought-provoking. And it is worth remembering that the concept of Wikipedia would have once seemed crazy, too. So perhaps the key message from the book is this: in a world of rapid technological change, we need to rethink our old assumptions about “left” and “right”; cyberspace is ripping up many ideas about the government and class system. Politicians of all stripes should take note. And so should the people who vote for them.
It's my book of the year, so far. If you're a serious reader of this blog (and whether you agree with what I write or not) there will be much to engage you in it. Just one quote from near the end gives an indication of its tempo, clear spirit and idealism:
There's one change which anybody in charge of a state could implement immediately, and for free: switch off the neoliberal privatisation machine. It's a myth that the state is passive in neoliberalism; in reality the neoliberal system cannot exist without constant, active intervention by the state to promote marketisation, privatisation and the interests of finance. It typically deregulates finance, forces governments to outsource services and allows public healthcare, education and transport to become shoddy, driving people to private services. A government that was serious about post-capitalism would give a clear signal: there will be no proactive extension of market forces. Simply for attempting this, the relatively conventional leftists of Syriza in Greece were overtly sabotaged. The ECB staged a run on the Greek banks and, as the price for stopping it, demanded more privatisation, more outsourcing, more degradation of public services.
And Paul was there to witness it.
Please do take note. This is one not to miss and a lot easier and more readable than Piketty with, if anything, more to say.
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:
Some people want a practical definition of neoliberalism and I like the one that Paul Mason gives in his book:
“By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head”
Andrew Carey
Defining neoliberalism as that which is shaped around neoliberal practices and institutions, and acting in neoliberal way, is not really defining it, is it?
Define it as the process of undermining the power of organised labour and government to the point where returns to capital increase at the expense of labour in that case
neo-liberalism is really a modern word for rent-extraction out of everything possible, it is profit without production ( as Lapavitsas call it) the financialisation of everything except the air (hold your breath on that one!).
Paul Mason seems to have gone through a transformation from BBC lackey (with leather jacketed mock-pugnacity). It’s good to see him finding his real voice! Will get a copy once the price drops a bit.
Capitalism has a lot in common with evolution. But whereas evolution is a blind force – driven by the overwhelming urge to pass on genes that maximise the chances of surviving and flourishing (and dispensing with those who fail to adapt) – capitalism is driven by greed. From time to time the pressure of moral sentiments or technological disruption may raise the prospect of a “kinder, gentler” capitalism. And arguments are advanced for a more “inclusive” capitalism or a more “responsible” capitalism. Unfortunately, all these do is beguile the unwary and the well-intentioned. Capitalism has the potential to generate economically and socially useful outcomes, but it has to be continuously shackled to generate these outcomes.
The advance publicity Paul Mason has generated for his book suggests it contains a lot of wishful thinking about capitalism. And I fear he’s too close to the minutiae of left-wing politics in Greece to recognise the extent to which Greece is a failed state. In the advanced economies we might lament the extent to which tax is evaded and avoided aggressively, but it attracts some attention because, in the main, there is a functioning tax levying and tax collection system that commands a broad measure of democratic consent. In addition there are some concerns, disingenuously and dishonestly whipped up the centre-right, about the generosity of the welfare system. But the extent of fraud or the award of payments in excess of amounts that could be objectively justified is negligible as a percentage of total social spending. On both of these counts Greece is so far from the norm for other advanced economies that the state does not really function in any meaningful sense.
Syriza’s antics since it was elected have to be assessed in this context. This by no means exonerates the ordoliberalism practised by the German centre-right (with even more enthusiastic support from other centre-right governments). But the frustration at the unwillingness of Greek citizens and politicians to remedy their failing state is palpable. It’s always someone else’s problem.
Gillian Tett’s opinions seem to change with whichever direction the wind is blowing. She heavily criticised the financial system, then later said we must preserve the financial status of the city of London.