It would seem I have touched a raw nerve for some regular commentators by suggesting that I welcome the IMF article, recently published, that appeared to recognise the failure of neoliberalism to tackle inequality and the inappropriateness of much of the austerity agenda.
It now seems that this article has attracted a vicious backlash from the FT, which clearly sees it as touching on neoliberal heresy. In that case to suggest, as some do, that this article is inconsequential is, in my opinion, wrong. If nothing else, it has revealed the true opinion of the FT, and the sharp divide between its editorial stance and the opinion of its lead economic columnist, Martin Wolf.
It is also safe to assume that if this has been the response outside the organisation then the debate within it has been at least as heated, and all this on an article which says it can find merit in some parts of the neoliberal agenda.
Why come back to the issue then? I think there are three good reasons for doing so.
First, how to respond to such an article from such an organisation opens up one of the more difficult questions in campaigning, which is whether to engage or not with those organisations that you criticise? It is not possible to be a tax justice campaigner and to not have been critical of the IMF and its approach over the last few decades. I have been of the IMF, the World Bank and, of course, of the Washington Consensus that they have promoted. But, a long time ago I decided that the only viable way in which I could help deliver tax justice was by engaging with those people and organisations whose opinions I wished to change.
Over the years I've been criticised for this, and been told that the policy would undermine my chances of success. So, variously, I was told that it was a mistake to serve on George Osborne's General Anti-Abuse Rule committee. Likewise, engaging with the OECD BEPS process was described as a mistake by some because the terms of engagement were clearly biased against developing countries. Others have also suggested that it was a mistake not to object to Jeremy Corbyn using some of my policy ideas. I suspect some would also criticise the fact that I went to the World Bank last week and there were definitely those who suggested that I should not accept an appointment at City University, precisely because it has got links to the City of London. As for the Fair Tax Mark; some say that is a sell out.
In all cases I disagree. It is my job to create ideas that might effect change. My purpose for doing so is, I hope clear: my aim is to create a more genuinely prosperous, more equal, more democratic, more accountable, more sustainable, more tolerant and so more enjoyable world in which we might live. More is an important word in that sentence: it could be prefaced with 'much' in many cases but I do not think we will ever create utopia. I want better because I doubt that the best I believe possible is actually achievable within the necessary compromises that human society requires, not just now but ever.
That, then, brings me to my second point. I am not seeking a revolution, but an evolution. I respect those who wish to be perpetual outsiders because they believe that the only way forward is to sweep away all that is in their path to create an entirely new society, but their's is not a path I would ever choose. There is good reason for that: I believe that the cost of such change is too high, and the uncertainty of the outcome too great for any such risk to be taken. The chance that what we have will be replaced by tyranny is also too significant to justify this approach, in my opinion.
But, perhaps, most of all, and thirdly, I believe that the power of an idea at the right time is sufficiently strong to ensure that such a revolutionary approach is wholly unnecessary. I stress, I am not claiming that my ideas are in this category; I am suggesting that ideas can be. Neoliberalism arose because it was an idea in the right place at the right time, even if I fundamentally disagree with the prescription that it offered. The post-war consensus was similarly created in this way.
I regret that as yet we have not reached a point where a similar replacement idea has been sufficiently developed to capture, unambiguously, the common political narrative. Discussion of sustainability is become mainstream, but not in reality commonplace. Disquiet with austerity is deep-rooted, but has not yet displaced the obsession with balanced budgets. Debate on inequality in its many egregious forms is taking place, but is not yet reversing trends. Some political developments now arising are deeply antagonistic to democracy. But, and I stress the point, the fact that all these things are happening is, in itself, indication that something really important is going on and that we may, in my opinion, be reaching a point where real change is possible.
I stress, in the context the IMF article is, in my opinion important even though it is not as radical as that which many people would wish to read. But that is how change takes place: very few of us are really capable of embracing giant leaps. Most of us have to, inevitably, partake in incremental steps on the way to a bigger goal.
I accept, and embrace that fact, which I perceive to be a reality. That is not to say there is no place for the campaigner who demands, with reason, more radical change. Whilst I see many of the attractions of being a 'no compromiser' that is not the path I have chosen to follow, even with tax havens (as my Plan B for Jersey made clear). If the choice is between a pitchfork and a pen, then I choose the pen, believing that at the end of the day this is the way to create real change. But as a result I also choose to engage, without apology.
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 thoughts on your post about the rights and wrongs of engagement.
1. There is no better way of getting your message across.
2. It is to your credit as a lucid and serious player that they see you as an appropriate contributor
3. Equally, it is to THEIR credit that they recognise and respect your very different and challenging views
4 For the rest of us, seeing your ideas being hosted within the bosom of orthodoxy helps us to know that the journey towards their acceptance (or even modification and improvement – it doesn’t matter) has begun
In short, your engagement is vital.
Thank you
I wholeheartedly agree with Chris Drew’s points.
Me too!
Me too!
Richard, thank you for this “Apologia pro Vita Tua” (to paraphrase Cardinal Newman’s essay in defence of his life’s work), on which I make two observations:
Revolution v evolution
There’s a great phrase about social change that runs “The soup boils from the bottom up”, and there’s no doubt, but that all real change depends on deep societal swells and movements.
However, to follow the soup image – if you boil the soup too vigorously, then all the ingredients are churned up, with much coming to the surface, while the soup also catches on the base of the pan, sticking and burning, and spoiling the soup. A controlled and timed simmer, by contrast, will lead to a palatable product
In the same way, revolutions bring scum, usually violent scum, to the surface, and overheat a society, often spiking the product. The difference between the French and American Revolutions us highly instructive: the American was really a war of independence against a foreign power, and as such, resulted in something relatively cohesive and moderate. The French Revolution, by contrast, was a class civil war within a single area, and was thus a real revolution, with all the pluses and minuses to be expected, as occurred in both the Russian and the Cultural Revolutions, in which mindless thuggishness held far too great a sway – a spoiled, burned soup.
Pens v pitchforks
Following on from this, I make two further observations within this second observation, the first being that, as you would expect, I favour pens over pitchforks every time, as words and language can be immensely powerful and persuasive, where pitchforks may just sully one’s argument.
Besides, it’s important to realise that Lenin’s words – his “April Theses”, and his skilled used of slogans to crystallise ideas, were powerfully conducive to the final outcome, as shapers of the thinking of the masses.
And that leads me to my second point, linking back to the whole image of “the soup boils from the bottom up”, that NOTHING is so powerful as an idea whose time has come. “Let’s win the peace” swept Attlee’s Labour Party into power in 1945, just as the “Winter of Discontent” and “Something has got to change” swept Thatcher into power in 1979.
In both instances, the victorious ideas had engaged with parts of society that didn’t naturally support them – Attlee and Thatcher reached out across the Party divide. In sum, engaging with the “enemy”, and seeking to persuade is the only viable alternative to trying to impose on the “enemy” by force – evolution and persuasion are, I believe, preferable to revolution and imposition, with the final rider that sometimes, as in France and Russia, the ruling class are sometimes stupid enough not to recognise when they should come to terms, and pay the price.
May it be that we, here in the UK, choose to let speak those ideas – whose time HAS come – for securing a truly worthwhile society, rather than coming to blows over the task of enabling the better society that MUST come into being, if the common good is to be preserved.
Thanks
I agree Andrew, in that there must be the very real threat of revolution for successful and lasting (evolutionary) social change to occur.
Power and wealth does not submit voluntarily, it will toy and tease with those pen and voice threats, but it will only fear and give way when it acknowledges that the pitchforks (or similar nasty ending) are imminent.
Sensible/wise power and wealth at that points yields to the inevitable and seeks a compromise where they retain a modicum at least of their existing power and wealth.
Insane/sociopathic power and wealth attempts to hang on and battle it out for even greater gains or to minimise their losses.
The question is whether the neo-liberal power/wealth base is wise or insane? I am not entirely sure, only time will tell!
Some are clearly insane as this statement report by the president of the Institute for New Economic Thinking shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCNo1mdjuo
Was he just commenting?
yes-sorry, misrepresented that-he was indeed just commenting.
Although there is perhaps a good illustration in that clip that any concern of the IMF and their financial puppet masters is only out of self-interest in the apparent lack of unlimited growth for their own wealth, and not at all for the concern of those who suffer the consequences.
For every story from the IMF etc, there are at least two angles to consider!
Yes we should always engage in debate, and I would have liked to comment on the FT website. However, their firewall blocks anyone who cannot afford the exorbitant FT subscription (in stark contrast to the Guardian for now) so the best I can do is to post here what I would have said:
“That exonerates most of what passes as neoliberalism.”
The word “most” did a lot of work in that sentence. We should indeed fight against a rising nationalist tide that threatens to turn back the clock on international trade, free and fair competition, and sound public finances. However, we will loose out on all three goals if we fail to recognise that deregulation, reduced marginal taxation, and shrinking government, which pass as “neoliberalism” are distorting the Global economy.
Rising inequality, and failure to replace well-paid jobs for middle-income workers in G7 countries will now block further international trade agreements. Meanwhile the Panama papers revealed an unregulated Global financial system which supports profit shifting and corruption on a scale that denies fair competition. And the need to restrict public investment to achieve “neoliberal” levels of reduced marginal taxation, far from growing the economy, has led to reductions in projected Global growth every year since 2010.
The FT rails against “unthinking radicals who lack the skills of empirical argument”, but I see precious little empirical argument in this article and a lot of unthinking doctrine. The FT must reflect that stalling growth, declining productivity, and rising inequality all demonstrate the failure of Global markets to meet 21st century challenges. If the FT sticks dogmatically to 20th century policies it will increasingly look, not like a “middle-aged man in a baseball cap”, but more like an angry old man due for retirement.
‘that appeared to recognise the failure of neoliberalism to tackle inequality and the inappropriateness of much of the austerity agenda.’
I certainly didn’t read the article to be as critical as that it was exceedingly gentle on neo-liberalism and I personally wouldn’t give go as far as to say it points out the ‘inappropriateness of MUCH of the austerity agenda’ (in fgact it lauds its ‘achievements’ to some extent) but I accept it offered a fissure; but clearly something stronger is needed than a few ‘backroom researchers’ stating the bleeding obvious.
Of course there is a need to engage but the outcome of unrestrained Neo-liberalism may well be as uncertain as the less engaged appraoch. We can see that in France, Greece, Brussels, the unrestrained,unregenerate neo-liberalism is bringing out the pitchforks and running into the hands of the Right.
If neoliberalism was hammering you personally and were a Greek farmer who couldn’t tend his/her olive trees; a person so hit by the bedroom tax that could barely eat/were watching your loved ones get ill and not be able to access health care/ were unemployed and told you were a ‘skiver and hounded by society/ were left alone and in despair by benefit sanctions…then maybe you would feel a little more choleric about the issue.
I’ve lived through some of this when I happened to get ill ‘at the wrong time’ and be without housing ‘at the wrong time.’ And these experiences colour the issue in a way that those who haven’t faced it cannot appreciate.
So when a piddley little article comes out from the cloud -cuckoo-land ivory tower of ‘pen pushers’ at the IMF you might be able to understand why I don’t see it quite as the Eureka moment you seem to be taking it for.
But I accept it is a crumb from the IMF table-I’ll concede that. Engaging in a reasonable and civilised way is absolutely necessary; nor would I want I violent uprising where the IMF offices are stormed and those inside strung up from lamposts! God forbid! But firmness is needed and the message that enough is enough, in no uncertain terms must be got across as the danger of ‘continuity neo-liberalism’ could be as bad as the pitchforks.
Having said all that, I essentially applaud your vital work which you do with great grace and generosity.
Simon, I think you describe the “lottery of life” that those at the sharp end must suffer in order for those in their “ivory towers” to be protected from.
We are all just an accident or illness away from personal disaster, however there is a very real difference for those who have amassed sufficient wealth and/or insurance protection to shield them and their families from the worst consequences.
But in reality life is not a “lottery” where we each have one ticket, because that would give each of us an equal chance of riding out the storms. But when some have a few million (or billions) of tickets and others have just a few (or none at all), then the game is clearly rigged as some of us know it has always been.
That is why the shameless behaviour and weasel words of the IMF intelligentsia bears no credibility with me, because they have known that was the essence of the rigged game they were peddling all along, right from the outset and now they have the gall to admit the results have been good for some but not for others.
Well hello, wake up and smell the coffee you great numbskulls – what on earth did you really expect to happen when you let loose and deregulate a financial system with inequality right at its heart!!
You really can’t have concentrated wealth without mass poverty, really, never, nada, not at all. It’s all a smokescreen, while they find another way to play the same game without getting caught out for a while longer!
I also suspect the IMF article to be a ‘decoy’, Keith. But, taking on board Richard’s view that it is about ‘changing minds’ it could be that those researchers don’t see some surreal irony in what they say given the appalling evidence in front of their eyes and are part of a group-think that they themselves aren’t conscious of but has become their mental wallpapers. This latter view is the more charitable one which prefers not to see everyone in these institutions as malevolent piss-takers. I oscillate between these two states.
I might well write to these researchers and remind them that their are real people out here who feel the rise is being taken out of them – that’s engagement, even if I don’t get a reply.
to inject some humour and brevity into the debate, and to quote Cpl Jones, “They don’t like it up’em.”
LOL..
The question for journalists is not “What possible criticism can there be of the Neoliberal consensus?” nor even “Why are we so wedded to it that we cannot criticise it without it being dangerous to our careers?”
The question, for journalists, is “Whom do we serve?”
And that, in turn, leaves us with a duty to engage – to put our case and publish it as widely as we can – whether or not it will be rebutted, or ridiculed, or met with vilification and abuse, or ignored and silenced; even if we are mistaken, where else will the public ever hear a balanced view?
It may well be that we are failing Fabians, and there is no point to politeness, persuasion and the pen against the arrogance of economic power: but pitchforks pointed in ignorance will poke the easy targets – us! – long before anyone of importance is impaled upon the consequences of their folly.
Indeed-the 1% will happily watch the ‘hoi polloi’ squabbling and fighting.
You have to engage with everyone in order to see a different view. Friends close, enemies even closer type of thing.
We all remember a wise teacher who influenced us showing how mighty words are.
Anditya Chakraborrty today, don’t know if spelling is correct.
But you can’t appease a bully, so have to challenge, get abrasive.
Actual violence, no, has to be influence by respect. But I would beat the living daylights out of a person doing harm to my loved ones,
Sorry, lowering the tone. Mr Murphy, I am sure you engender respect from many, when attacked you are hitting a nerve.
I think that I know what you stand for Richard and there is no need to ever explain yourself to me.
Except that is, if you ever went through some sort of over-night conversion to neo-liberalism in which case you had better be on top form.
Revolution or Evolution depends on how much pain the afflicted are prepared to endure. It seems the UK population has a masochistic streak which plays nicely into the hands of the 1%. And the Greeks are extraordinarily accepting of their EU masters. If the plutocrats can’t see the sense in changing peacefully then there will be violent revolution, as we see now in the Middle East and South America. Venezuela, the latest victim targetted by the Neo-Liberal élite, is on the brink of total collapse (https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/author/bobmckee).
Marx was on the button. As was Bill Clinton. ‘It’s the economy, stupid’. When it comes to the equitable allocation of resources and wealth, the time for evolution has run-out. The 1% is simply not listening. There’s already a global war out there. How it manifests itself simply depends on where you live. But it’s no time to be complacent.
Social media is a powerful tool. I’m pleasantly amazed as to how many of the scores of on-line petitions I sign for a miscellany of causes are successful. Once people wake up to the power they have, the change process could accelerate exponentially.
In the final analysis, the plutocrats want your vote and your money. Deprive them of both and they are without a power base. The bad news is that they then call in the militia. At which point the revolution becomes violent. Plus ça change ….
In the final analysis I happen to think you are wrong
You really do underestimate people
You do make a good point about “the plutocrats want your vote and your money”.
We do ALL still have some choices we can make, and I strongly believe we do not exercise the power of our collective spending to alter the course of economics and politics in this country.
We are lucky to still live in a relatively free and competitive society, where choices are available in most of our essential as well as discretionary purchases.
So use them – it really does feel very good!
Mmm … I’m sorry you drew that conclusion. I don’t think I do but I am realistic about the power of the neo-liberal agenda and how a very questionable economic ideology has ‘successfully’ been imposed upon, or sold to, what must be at least 60% of the planet within the relatively short period of 40 years. It’s an amazing con-trick backed by the greatest military power the world has ever known since the British Empire. Populations have been lulled into a false sense of security via an abundance of material goodies that has kept them off the streets, so to speak. But as they are becoming increasingly aware of the expanding inequality and how it impacts upon them personally, I think (hope) they are realising it doesn’t have to be like this. But it’s going to be a drawn-out struggle to eliminate the ‘Washington Consensus’ as a strategy to subjugate nations, and then to introduce a new economic paradigm that serves the majority. How it pans out over the decades ahead, I’ve no idea. Hopefully the transition will be peaceful in countries with a reasonable level of democracy but I’m pretty confident violence will escalate elsewhere. We live in interesting and unstable times, that’s for sure.
PSR, please stop saying what I want to say before I can get there!
Nick
Sorry my friend – please forgive me.
I’ll take a sabbatical for the rest of the week and leave you to it.
All this EU debate, trying to be a Dad, Son in Law, having a full time job and having to see the Doctor too often is getting to me. Oh and there’s car MOT due as well.
Go for it Nick!
See you all next Wednesday!!
Take care until then everyone and don’t let the buggers grind you down.
At root everything is information flow and it’s the response to information flow, acceptance or rejection, that matters.
Stalin imposed himself as an autonomous arbitrator of information flow and its acceptance or rejection in the name of social justice but only succeeded in creating dire consequences for many.
The lesson from life is that it takes the course of endlessly monitoring information and evolving responses to it for its relevance to the persistence of life. It explores then it stabilises and clumsily impeding either of these two forces will create disfunction.
Richard Murphy is right we must be smart and act carefully by evolving solutions to injustice which don’t necessarily burn all bridges behind us so no retreat is possible from those solutions that turn out to be inept.
Ah Richard, I think you’re right or at least I believe that evolutionary change is the only hope. I waver, some days I share your optimism but some days it’s very hard. But I commented on your previous article critical of the label neoliberalism, as I tend to be critical of so many labels. I used the old term enclosure of the commons deliberately in the same way as I would describe someone being sacked rather than optimised, or whatever buzz term was in vogue. I don’t think labels are the only problem but they go a long way in assisting the obfuscation of what is really happening.
However the enclosure side has evolved extremely well over the last 40 years while opposition has fragmented and been steam rollered by the MSM. So much energy is diverted into sideshows that give the illusion of progress. We think we are gaining ground when we achieve things like equality across race and gender. The real battlegrounds, the wealth divide, global population and climate change, get passed over.
That said I do like to imagine what I would create given a blank slate, and the mechanics of the global financial system are pretty ok. It is a tool and use or misuse are a matter of politics and ideology/greed rather than any intrinsic problem. I believe in capitalism and markets but mixed with other isms to get the best general outcomes.
So you’re right tweaking can work as long as the tweaks are allowed.
Richard, may I have your permission to republish this post of yours in full over on Learning from Dogs?
Yes