According to the Guardian:
In a speech in Prague, [Jeremy Corbyn] the Labour leader said that unless progressives broke with a “failed economic and political establishment” the far right would fill the gap.
There are real problems with this claim. Of course it is vital that the economics and politics of neoliberalism is a rejected. That's because it simply does not work. But it's dangerous to personalise this. Like it or not neoliberalism has been the prevailing dogma for thirty years. People have been taught it to the exclusion of all else. Of course some of us rumbled it. But most didn't; indeed many still don't.
Is it in that case appropriate to reject all the people who have at some time accepted this ideology as if they are an 'establishment' being overthrown or would it be better to win the argument and bring them with the left? There are, after all, going to need to be people to make a new economy work, and without some converts there may not be enough.
Might we de-personalise this, please, and name the issue as the idea, not those who have been seduced by it?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“Is it in that case appropriate to reject all the people who have at some time accepted this ideology as if they are an ‘establishment’ being overthrown …”
Yes. Absolutely. Do you think for one second most are willing to give up their massive wealth and power advantages by the force of a counter argument? They are not. They must be removed, penalised and never put again in a position of power or influence. Their mistake is not to have failed to understand an argument; it’s to have failed miserably to steer our society from catastrophe and caused misery to millions in the process. It’s a huge failure of competence and kindness for which they must pay.
One of the lessons that we should really have learned by now but is a key part of the anger and resentment many feel now (and is growing all the time) is that no-one was caught and punished for the 2007/8 global financial catastrophe. We should never make the same mistake again.
Incrementalism is not only an inappropriate way forward after the last 30 years but a guarantee of continuing misery for too many. Radical, wholesale removal and economic neutering is the least that will be needed to give the different way forward a chance of taking hold for the long term.
I do disagree with you
Most economists are not the owners of massive power
Most civil servants do not have enormous wealth
They are open to argument
They are very much part of the power elite
But just as post war Germany had to be built using many ex Nazis, often doing the same jobs they did for that regime, so too will post neoliberal society be built the same way
And it is ludicrous and deeply dangerous to think otherwise
“I do disagree with you.”
Fine. We are both honest people so this is no hardship just an opportunity to learn and reach agreement.
“Most economists are not the owners of massive power. Most civil servants do not have enormous wealth.”
I’m afraid they do, both of them. There are always isolated, individual exceptions but we are talking about civil servants at the higher levels who, since the politicisation of their traditionally neutral roles, have been facilitators for neoliberalism for twenty years. Who have known and paid the price for continuing in their lucrative, highly-pensioned roles (and after that the highly lucrative private sector directorships and sinecures obtained via the revolving door of preference, grift or downright corruption); to agree and execute any and all horrors. It’s the regular and pedestrian process of personal advantage at the expense of social duty, isn’t it? I’m afraid (as you brought up post war Germany as an example) the Nuremburg defense is no shield for them. Would you have it be so? If more had become whistle-blowers for decency and not relied on the ‘But I was only following orders!’ fig-leaf so much misery could have been delayed or obfuscated. But they didn’t; they facilitated it. We prosecuted the camp guards in 1947 and onwards; why is their complicity any less just because the bodies are not stacked in one pile?
The economics profession at all levels has been an epidemic nightmare for the same reasons for the same length of time; it’s not enough for the most prominent economists to point to singular watery comments of luke-warm, half-hearted, timid questioning of the orthodoxy of neoliberal policies, it’s the career, the lifetime spent failing to point out the obvious catastrophies that will inevitably occur when inequality gets worse, when offshoring jobs litters the national economies of the west with economic wastelands for generations and austerity is defended as rational and reasonable that damns all but the few heterodox stalwarts. They made their riches (compared to the service economy millions who subsist below minimum wages on zero-hours contracts as a result of their blind eyes) by failing their most basic role; canary to the mine gases of policy consequences.
Both of the sections of the population you chose to highlight are deeply culpable (again, with a few honourable exceptions) and individually should never again be given a chance to contribute to such suffering as they have allowed to happen on their watch. They both wield huge influence over decisions made, wield huge influence over the public perception of policy directions and have benefitted hugely from doing so. You accept my point that “They are very much part of the power elite.” already so I find it difficult to understand why they should be absolved of responsibility for their contributions to our present state of affairs.
The counter you offer makes my point for me; post war Germany, as a practical matter of rebuilding a shattered society, offered a lifeline to ordinary members of society to whom the previous regime had ‘been done to’ rather than ‘been driven by’ while all branches of the ruling establishment were held responsible and tried. All branches; political, economic, social leaders going a fair distance down the hierarchies. I find the disaster of political direction and the resultant horrors of social disintegration we have experienced since the late Seventies to be a long-drawn-out car-crash of leadership whose consequences bear comparison to the sorts of episodes you mention; post war reconstruction and Depression-era calamities.
If we as a society are to construct similar paths back to progressive, caring and safe societies one of the necessary steps we need to take is to hold those with some responsibility to account. That way we can cauterise the time and begin healing.
You massively overstate the number of Nazi prosecutions
Of course there are some who might never accept a new paradigm
But to suggest these people are criminals who must effectively be denied access to the right to work for following a non-criminal dogma is to present an ugly opportunity for the right
For heaven’s sake don’t consign many of us to an unreasonable fate
There are no such absolute points made in the comment and you need not worry.
We need to show that this era of ‘Greed is Good’ and ‘There is no society’ was a dead-end down which our ancestors MUST not go again rather than a period of valid decision-making that was disagreeable to some. That would post-rationalise and justify it as one valid option among many, which it has never been; it has been the visitation of a damaging ideology on large populations to the benefit of a few. Any neglect to punish the facilitators and authors on our part would betray this generation which suffered and jeopardise future ones.
An old boss (hi CJ!) used to say that if somebody does not understand something you have explained – your explanation is at fault. That said, I’d suggest that if an explanation/argument is clear & valid & it is still rejected then perhaps some fault lies with the listener.
In the last two weeks, I have heard people from the European Commission going on about “market-based” solutions (in one case energy, the other transport). In the case of energy, I spent an evening trying in vain to explain that expecting “markets” to provide finance solutions to many energy problems (e.g. how to energy renovate X00 million houses in the EU to a good standartd) was to expect the impossible. In the case of transport – markets have created the traffic disasters that are a feature of most major cities.
Parts of society (mentioned by Richard) are locked into the “only-markets” mindset. Some hopefully are open to argument – my experience so far suggests that there are few of them – neoconism appears to be embeded to a degree that causes congnitive dissonace when reasonable/valid/good arguments are put forward for a different approach. Maybe we just need to keep trying? I certainly do.
We could start with educating a large percentage of the Labour Party membership and MPs about the realities of how money is created, and disabuse them of the notion that you run a country as you run your personal finances.
You will find many of our MPs knee jerk reaction to peoples’ QE is to trot out the “money tree” and Zimbabwe canards. Many of them are still unsure about austerity, and pay lip service to neo-liberal ideas, either through ignorance, or something else I can’t rightly diagnose.
We need this from party leadership. Jeremy and John, are you listening? And this from me, a Corbyn supporter, wondering why we don’t hear this loud and clear, in this country, at PMQs, not in Prague!
I don’t disagree with you. But proponents of, adherents to and supporters of the Neo-liberal free-market and austerity (household budget) ideology should be viewed like addicts. The first step to recovery is to admit your addiction. And I fear it is proabably impossible within any ‘reasonable’ time span as too many have been addicted for too long.
I’ve just watched this pre-election interview with Ralph Nader who gives the historical background in the US as to how both Democrats & Republicans now sing from the same hymn sheet. The title is a bit misleading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eOQfTtexwc.
It’s not so different over here. We just got rolled over a bit later under Thatcher. But, in principle, you’re right. It’s important not to give up or be exclusive. But never say never. Neither the Left nor the Right has any preferential ownership of the truth.