There are curses in our time. These are the obstacles that prevent us making the progress towards the world that we need to live in. They combine practical and systemic issues. The feature they have in common is a dogmatic refusal to address them amongst too many in the political classes from right across the spectrum as we now have it. They are easy to name. Three will do for the sake of analysis.
Rentierism
The concept of economic rent is little understood, largely because the term ‘rent' is so closely associated with the payment made for the use of land. However, economic rent is a much broader concept than that. I like this definition:
‘Economic rent' can be broadly defined as income derived from ownership or control over a limited asset or resource. Such income is attained without any expenditure or effort on behalf of the resource holder or in excess of their opportunity cost.
That definition captures the essence of the issues surrounding rent. They are payments made because the person with control of an asset is able to exploit it to ensure payment to themselves of an unearned reward.
So, we have the rise of the private rental sector within our economy, explicitly encouraged and rewarded by government incentives.
As importantly, we have the rise of financial engineering in major corporations that means many now pay dividends despite not earning the profits to pay for them, with the funding coming from excess borrowing. Not only is the shareholder rewarded for something unearned, but so too is the executive working in such enterprises.
Then there is the whole edifice of pay in the City, maintained as it is by means of the power structures that place the control of trillions of financial wealth in the hands of a few people, who then exploit that power.
The demand that returns from capital be lightly taxed was created with assistance from those able to capture the legislation of tax havens for private gain.
The exploitation of savers by bankers arises from the ability of a few who have captured control of monetary policy to pretend that the role of money in society is quite different from what it actually is, diverting rewards to themselves in the process.
The climate crisis is being perpetuated by those seeking to sell the planet for short-term gain for themselves.
The financialisation of the young is done deliberately to reward those who came before them. Student debt is the best example.
In every case the goal is to:
- Benefit a few at cost to the many;
- Increase inequality;
- Create barriers to reform;
- Maintain a supposed status quo that has never previously existed.
In the process:
- People are treated as expendable;
- The creation of value ceases to be of relevance, meaning capitalism has died;
- Concern for the future has ceased except insofar as the perpetuation of advantage for the few is maintained;
- The erosion of rights is normal.
Slavery was, of course, a firm of rentierism. Its tentacles now spread much further and wider.
Exceptionalism
Exceptionalism is the idea that a country is different to others, and better as a result.
Brexit was powered by exceptionalism. So too is Russian aggression. So is the indifference of those in power in the USA as to the impact of their decisions on its currency on developing countries a form of exceptionalism when that currency is used by so many other countries.
Exceptionalism is based on arrogance, mythology, and straightforward lies. Its founding assumption is that there is an indigenous people who are possessed of superior traits that occupy a territory. Racist and eugenic within itself, the claim is also very obviously false. The only truly identifiable human trait is our extraordinary commonality, rather than our differences. Exceptional individuals might exist. There is no evidence that exceptional populations do, although those capable of being deceived into brutality seem to be a recurring theme of history.
Exceptionalism is intended to deliver political reward to those promoting it. It is the political corollary of rentierism. It seeks to exploit an advantage (a wholly artificial one in this case) for the sake of a return to a few without concern for the many who will suffer as a result.
Intolerance
Rentierism and exceptionalism can only survive if there is intolerance for dissent.
That intolerance is built around myths. The politics of envy is such a myth. Racism is fuelled by other myths. So too is sexism, in all its forms. The idea that there might be a privilege due to wealth because it is associated with ability is another such myth: its association with exploitation is the only real identifiable trait it possesses. There are, of course, many other such myths. Religion both creates them, and is subject to them.
The myths have a purpose. It is to divide people. Once division is created intolerance of those on the wrong side of the divide is possible. Exploitation requires this intolerance.
Our problem is that we in the UK live in a rentier economy that long ago forgot about the need to pursue economic activity to generate returns. It prefers instead to leverage unearned returns. But it wishes to do so whilst arguing it has exceptional advantage, which is a claim when now being tested is glaringly obviously untrue, but where those seeking to point this out are treated with intolerance.
As a consequence, we have developed our own firm of twenty-first century fascism.
This is a profoundly unhappy combination that the UK has pursued more than most. It is in fact the basis for our fascism, which favours a corrupt form of clientelism that drives unearned reward to a few at cost to the many; that is backed by the exceptionalism of Brexit and all that has flowed from it; and a wave of intolerance on many fronts.
This fascism can, of course, be countered. Rentierism can be countered. I have suggested how. The absurdity of Brexit can be addressed. It will take time, but it can be done. And respect for human rights, which are the opposite of intolerance could be restored. But none of these things can be done by small-minded, managerial politics. Will the politicians of the left rise to the challenge? I do not know.
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:
An excellent summary.
But one small correction: in the US, the people claiming US exceptionalism are not at all the indigenous population – they are the settlers or descendants of settlers.
In the UK, those claiming to be “indigenous” have none of the qualities I associate with that word – profound respect for the ecosystem they are dependent on, for example.
I know you were trying to avoid other terms (“white” for example) that don’t really do the job either. And that to use “colonizers” for them brings in a whole load of other problems – but actually, that is what the rentiers are. They are the direct descendants of the greedy corrupt individuals who set up things like the East India Company.
Noted
Quite so Jacky, though as my brother pointed out the other day, during a conversation about the thieving corrupt lot in charge today, that England has for centuries been run by people who got there unpleasantly, to say the least – he pointed out, for example, that had the Spanish Armarda not had a spot of bad luck, they would have sorted out the ‘privateers’ (.i.e pirates) that eminated from ‘this sceptered’ isle, and then going back further we have the Norman invaders, before them, the Saxons, before them, the vikings (Danelaw etc)… a pretty unpleasant lot really.
… and oh yes, he gives me his copy of Private Eye – seemingly alone in the printed media in naming things for what they are.
While I agree in principle, every occupied territory is occupied by humans because their ultimate ancestors migrated there. Except, perhaps for the original population in Africa from which, it appears, all humans are descended. Migration ande colonisation is neither a recent nor a ‘white’ habit. It is the norm for all human beings and, while it makes an absolute nonsense of the argument of a ‘better race’ or that exceptionalism is justified, it doesn’t really explain the absolute unpleasantness of some.
Only this morning I heard something about cutting taxes to increase investment. To the uninformed, it sounds reasonable. We need journalists who are willing to challenge these statements almost as much as politicians willing to do so.
The system is so short term that I worry what sort of economy my grandchildren will have to find their way in.
You are right to worry
As far as I know reducing tax to increase investment is one of the great cons. A long period of low taxes has seen low investment, in R&D, people, technology, infrastructure let alone public services. Businesses that do invest do it on the basis of market opportunities not tax breaks. And I checked with a respected economist that I know.
Value creation nearly always means wealth extraction. Otherwise known as rentierism. Combined with ‘selling the family silver’, in both public and private sectors.
You are right
“But none of these things can be done by small-minded, managerial politics.”
Hear, hear. I just can’t wrap my head around how passive some on the left are being over the impending catastrophes. I get they need to get elected, but if in order to do so you offer up so much less than the bare minimum required to address the disasters unfolding right now then we are doomed.
There also seems to be a breed of journalists or commentators out there who are perfectly happy to talk about needing bold ideas and attack the Tories, but the moment there is a hint of movement towards mainstreaming those bold ideas they recoil in horror and do everything in their power to attack the people looking to implement them. As if there is a collective denial that the problem is now, it is in the present, and every day we don’t start doing something we get closer to the point of no return.
I really despair.
Well – I can’t believe how timely this post is for me.
The other day I had a chat with my brother who lives in Southern Ireland. He’s been very unwell – he has long Covid but also some other issues – one being particularly serious. The Irish health system has been driving him bonkers. He’s had a number of very unpleasant experiences in A&E and specialist units in Irish hospitals despite having had the required health care cover from the late 1980’s when he moved over there. He’s always worked BTW and paid his way.
Don’t get me wrong here – he loves living there and has made a good life and many friends. My niece and nephew have wonderful accents which brightens up our house whenever they visit (as does the wonderful Welsh accent of my father in law).
Anyhow, having told me what has been going on (and it sounds similar to our NHS here in England), he then to my total surprise starts talking to me about ‘how right Nigel Farage was’ to raise these issues and that there were ‘too many of us’ and how come all these Ukranians were getting help that people already living in Ireland weren’t getting.
What followed was a very difficult discussion with a seriously ill man. My heart sank.
I remember my brother in his younger days as someone who would give you the shirt off his own back if you needed it. We were once out for the day near some lakes and we heard a splash only to look over and see that a toddler had fallen into the water off a foot bridge. David – my brother in question – just jumped straight into the deep and murky water and pulled her out without thinking of himself at all.
How many times have I heard this line of argument since 2010? I saw this line of argument in London in the 1990’s as hard pressed, poor black, white, Christian, Muslim social housing tenants in affluent West London decried the arrival of Kosovans in the city.
Reflecting then on your post, it is obvious to me that the ‘problems’ with public services are actually deliberate – designed to cause hardship and resentment so that people effectively turn against public services and also against each other because they are fed up and scared. My brother is also drugged up to the eyeballs with painkillers and other symptom suppressants – God knows how much real medicine has been replaced by prescription drugs since 2010.
It’s not hard to see how modern Fascism works.
It manufactures consent for people to de-people people and lose their empathy; to unthinkingly and desperately allow a change in the ownership of our institutions and services on the basis of promises that will never be fulfilled; to cause us to think about ourselves and compete with each other for meagre resources; it encourages us to covet what those at the side of us and are like us have and stops us looking up at where the problem really is.
Fascism – the most evil and successful political device of our times.
I still love my brother and I’ve decided that Fascism is not going to get the better of me – I will still love my fellow people no matter how misled they maybe. No matter what the rentiers, the Tories, Labour or the Lib-Dems do, I will face my challenges secure in the knowledge of where accountability lies – I promise you that. They won’t make me look down, or at myself or to my left and right looking for blame. I will still look up.
Finally the only person fit to follow at times like this is that chap from Nazareth called Jesus; take his advice and try to forgive the misled 30% who fall for this fascist bullshit. Don’t write them off – keep chiselling away if you can – to negate them I’ m afraid is to be just as Fascist.
Thanks
“it is obvious to me that the ‘problems’ with public services are actually deliberate – designed to cause hardship and resentment so that people effectively turn against public services and also against each other” I agree the problems are deliberate. I think rather though they’re part of an effort to do away with order in general so the upcoming Charter Cities, brutal though they will in some regards be, look good by comparison and people will be greatly encouraged to adopt the firm sense of order there to seek refuge from the increasing lawlessness and general chaos everywhere else. The Baker St Herald, who usually writes on these matters, appears to have finally succumbed to his hysteria and ceased his commentary. However, in his absence, new stars arise and one has written this very concerning piece on Medium https://medium.com/@cormack.lawson/charter-cities-the-real-reason-for-brexit-and-the-bigger-picture-4de80dbb69fb
I found it very concerning. I think author Cormack Lawson is wrong on one point, healthcare will have to be provided just as it was on the plantations, but everything else he projects seems alarmingly feasible. At the present time it’s comparatively easy to suggest the imminent problem is the rise of fascism as we have history to draw comparison with and conclusion from whereas the idea of a corporation owning not just a big building but an entire City and the social implications is new to us. I think everyone should give this a read. It would be useful too if someone capable were to analyse the terms under which the Cities are being sold off and see if they form the same or similar conclusions as Lawson does.
Bill
Can I just clarify? When I talk of Fascism I speak of it as a political technique – not as a political movement. Fascism is not ‘rising’ – it has risen and has been with us a long time. We have been subjected to lots of it since BREXIT from Left and Right.
Fascism as a technique is all about polarising opinion, dividing and conquering and avoiding consensus. It sows confusion and creates cognitive dissonance in those who are subjected to it. And therefore, having created strife, the next part of the Fascist tactic is to offer a new way forward to be lapped up by grateful but confused masses.
The running down of our cities by underfunding them is consistent with the artificial creation of strife as a Fascist technique and now the answer – the Charter City – like health action zones, regeneration zones and God knows what else zone I’ve seen in social housing over the years – will promise better this and better that but will just end being a corporate robbing franchise free of any responsibilities to the poor. The dirty secret of much estate regeneration has been that it has raised the profile of residents but the true power has been handed to the market forces with the obvious consequences – a recent article in the Guardian about the London 2012 Olympic village points out what often goes wrong – local people are mostly pushed out and results are far from uniform. But the rich always do really well.
For those of us who find the concept of Fascism too much to bear and are sceptical, then why not look at the work of Edward Bernays – the so-called father of ‘public relations’. The Nazis learnt a lot from Bernays and American capitalism’s ability to win over public opinion. The two have an interesting overlap that deserves more attention.
But whether we call it Fascism or PR or both – the link is that it is the rich and powerful who will always benefit as they rob us in plain sight.
They create problems in order to offer solutions that always advantage their objectives. It’s plain evil if you ask me.
Sounds like divide and rule, Pilgrim. A strategy much used in the British Empire but , in many cases, they did rule. In the late 60s and 70s I had a few conversations with people from former colonies who told me of some of the positives along with the negative.
With the present lot it is more like divide and mis-rule.
ED COMMENT: Thank you for commenting. You have not done so before and the tone of your comment suggests that you might be trolling. As such please now email me providing evidence that you might be the person you claim to be with evidence of a persistent pattern of posting on other social media such as Facebook or Twitter using the name that you have now used to comment here so that I might decide whether I wish to let you comment on this site. My decision on whether to then accept comments from you will be final. The more information you provide the easier it will be for me to make a positive decision. Any disclosure you make will be voluntary. You do not need to respond if you do not wish to post again.
ED COMMENT: Thank you for commenting. You have not done so before and the tone of your comment suggests that you might be trolling. As such please now email me providing evidence that you might be the person you claim to be with evidence of a persistent pattern of posting on other social media such as Facebook or Twitter using the name that you have now used to comment here so that I might decide whether I wish to let you comment on this site. My decision on whether to then accept comments from you will be final. The more information you provide the easier it will be for me to make a positive decision. Any disclosure you make will be voluntary. You do not need to respond if you do not wish to post again.
Great post Richard . like i have mentioned in another post , i am reading Rentier Capitalism by Brett Christopher and i urge all our great friends on here to buy a copy . for a Layman like myself , the book is frankly shocking . it is so crucial for people like myself to educate themselves because we are the clueless majority . no wonder the 30 odd per cent of Conservative voters realise how important it is to vote in each General Election . your first paragraph here is about Rentierism [ and bizarrely the spell checker does not recognise that word !! how apt !! ] which is of course what Brett’s book is about . he notes that many Financial Assets can be created out of thin air !! The chapter about the North Sea Oil period shows how the private sector rentiers enjoyed a field – day because Government policy enabled them to do so – just as it has in the Financial Sector . Imagine all that wealth passing over to public enterprise to build new Hospitals , Homes etc etc in that period …….. Shocking ……
Thanks
Are P&O still in the running for the Freeport scam?
If they’re “successful” then why not extend them?
School – Academies
Hospital – Trusts
Local NHS – Integrated Care System
Local democracy will by then be so last-year.
I am not aware P&O are running one
But your point is valid
Who would you say are the main fascists of the 20th century? There’s the obvious choices in Continental Europe but what about Imperialists like Churchill, Balfour, Chamberlain, Eden? Were they fascists too?
I have no time to discuss this now