I dictated this yesterday when trying out a new microphone system that we intend to use (the Rode Wireless Pro system). I then transcribed this recording using Descript and realised that it was worth sharing:
This has been a disturbing day in world politics.
Donald Trump has selected a new running mate, J. D. Vance, a senator from Ohio. Vance was previously a harsh critic of Trump, suggesting that he could be the United States Hitler, but since doing so, he has dramatically changed his tune. He has fallen under the influence of Peter Thiel, who is a former director of PayPal and one of its founders and, as a consequence, a multi-billionaire.
Thiel is one of the funders of the ultra-right in America, who take libertarianism way beyond previously known limits. They question the right of the state to exist. It is their aim at all times to undermine its administration. Their belief is that freedom and democracy might well be incompatible. Their goal is to restore the rights of the individual, but they see the individual in question as being a white male.
Their attitudes towards abortion threaten the well-being of American women.
Their attitudes on race are atrocious.
The fear is that they have populist support amongst large parts of the population, and the reason for that is that neoliberalism has failed.
As a matter of fact, neoliberalism has not delivered rewards to most Americans, just as it has not delivered rewards to most people in the UK or in Europe. The benefit of the last 40-plus years of neoliberal rule of all of those places, in the wake of the revolution by Milton Friedman and Hayek - put forward by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as the answer to the post-war years of Keynesian consensus - has been that we have seen a massive redistribution of wealth upwards in society.
Those on middle and lower incomes have seen, overall, relatively little increase in their well-being. And that is most especially true for those on the lowest levels of income. They are particularly prejudiced by what has happened, and as a consequence they feel, not unreasonably, alienated from the entire political process. That is most especially the case when, as is the case in the UK, the USA, and in many other countries, including Ireland, Germany, and France, the main ruling parties are acting in coalition to preserve the hegemony of the neoliberal way and to block any alternative that might be available, particularly from those on the left who seek the redistribution of income and wealth for the benefit of everyone in society.
The consequence has been the rise of fascism. Donald Trump has exploited this. In the UK we are seeing Nigel Farage do it with Reform. In France we're seeing Marie Le Pen do it. And, of course, the AfD have risen in Germany. In Ireland the reaction is slightly different. The move has been towards Sinn Féin on the left and not towards the right, although there are very nasty right-wing politicians in Ireland who are creating dissent, particularly in areas of deprivation.
What are we seeing? We're seeing a challenge to the democratic way of life with which most of us are familiar and which we have grown up with and which we have always presumed will continue. The possibility is that it won't. There is a real chance that democracy is now at peril.
Now we have flawed democracy, I don't pretend otherwise. In the UK, we have first-past-the-post elections, which do not deliver a parliament that reflects the will of the people in this country. That is abundantly clear. But what we also know is that there is an element of choice in this, although our political parties have conspired to shut it down, in particular in the UK at least, eliminating the left from consideration as a consequence.
With the demise of Labour as a left-wing party under Keir Starmer, there is now no strong left-of-centre electoral force with the prospect of immediate government in the UK. As a result, people feel that they cannot be represented by existing parties. And unsurprisingly, we see Reform rising in the UK.
And we see Trump's Republicans rising in the USA, and so on.
Is there a way around this? Well, yes, there very obviously is. The answer is actually quite straightforward. If this alienation of vast numbers of people is caused by the fact that the rewards of neoliberal economic growth have not been fairly distributed, the answer is to fairly distribute the income and wealth that now exists.
Income and wealth are massively imbalanced as to their distribution in all the economies I have mentioned, so those who have been left out have begun to feel that they have no chance of sharing in the prosperity which we as countries have generated. Because let's not dispute this, we are richer than we have ever been, despite all the challenges that we face.
And so, the answer now is very straightforward. We have a choice. We can redistribute income and wealth, or we can pave the way to fascism. And those politicians who deny that redistribution of income and wealth is not possible because, they say, this would not be politically acceptable to those who own it are in the wrong. Making excuses for the pathway to fascism, they are, in my opinion, fascist enablers.
This is a deeply dangerous situation. I am extremely worried about it. I won't pretend otherwise. I sometimes sit in the depths of despair thinking about the prospect of what is to come, the threat that it poses, and the risks inherent within it.
The challenge is to those who want to stand up for the truth and who draw attention to the potential bloodbath that is planned, because let's be clear, that is what Trump has promised in the USA if he doesn't win. All of this, of course, leaves me worried. Why wouldn't it? Why should anyone not be worried in the face of such risk?
But why is it, in that case, that these politicians, who have gained power as neoliberals are so adamant that they must continue on the same paths that they have pursued for some time, fuelling the rise of populism as a result? I wish I knew the answer to that because I genuinely don't know what it is. I presume them to be people of goodwill, people who wish for the best and who hope that they might make the world a better place. But their actions are denying that possibility. Why are they so conflicted?
What is it about their belief system and the inculcation of neoliberalism within their ethos that so distorts their thinking that they cannot see that without fundamental change in the society that we have the alternative is not something a little different from where we are with a few tweaks here and there on the way, which is what these neoliberals propose.
I hope that somehow we can get that message about how they are paving the path to fascism through to them.
I reiterate that the choice is a simple one. We redistribute income and wealth, or we pave the path to fascism. That is it.
I know which way I am inclined to go. I want to redistribute income and wealth.
Isn't it time that our politicians did the same, because the threat from fascism is so much greater than the threat that they face from upsetting a few wealthy people who might have to pay a bit more tax to preserve the wellbeing of the society in which we live and which actually keeps the wealth of those people intact?
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:
We already do redistribute income and wealth.
Politely, no we do not
Just read chapter 16 of the Taxing Wealth Report 2024
We have a system where there is some redistribution of income via taxation and welfare. It is not a means of distributing wealth.
We constantly hear the excuse that we can’t tax the rich adequately because the rich would otherwise leave and make us poorer. If we were redistributing adequately why would people making these arguments.
You are right Tom We do redistribute wealth.
UPWARDS from the majority
@Tom Roberts
Yes we do. I don’t often disagree with Richard, but in this case I do. We certainly DO redistribute income.
Upwards.
I think that unacceptable.
How, Tom Roberts? Please give details.
[…] Cross-posted from Richard Murphy’s blog ‘Funding the Future’ […]
The threat of fascism (& the attendant rise of the ultra-ultra rich) is a US phenomena which has contaminated the EU and infested the UK (as endless blogs have shown). UK politico’s port of call is mostly Washington – for ideas? or instructions? Arguably the UK is ± a US state in the way that Puerto Rico is… & is incapable of collecting taxes from US corporations (a situation ± also occurring in Europe), the book Vassal State contains all the gory details . What is to be done? Go after US corporates?? But the UK might need to work with the EU to do that.
Standing back & looking at the sweep of history: The relationship: USA – Europe has always been one of “how can the USA take advantage of Europe” – both short term and long term. This was the case WW1, the case in the inter-war years, & certainly the case in WW2 – and the imposed post-WW2 “settlement” by the USA – which at that point was ± global in reach, both militarily and financially. WW1 was “a nice little earner” for the USA – which supplied both sides, ditto WW2 (albeit UK and USSR). The USA has no interest in a “strong” Europe – it might pose a challaneg – & we can’t have that. Note how the Ukraine war increased EU dependency on US LNG. Almost as if it was planned. (btw: the industrialisation of the USSR in the 1930s? much of the equipment came from – the USA – paid for in gold from Kolyma – where millions died digging it).
Regarding war (relevant now ref Ukraine), it weakens countries. All European wars over the last 150 years have weakened European governments – kicking off with the Franco-Prussian war (which arguably led to WW1 and II). European wars are, by definition, fought in Europe. The USA since 1865 has never been involved in any war that weakened it – quite the reverse – all wars the USA has taken part in have strengthened it. Ref: war against Spain in 1900 – which led to the USA acquiring the Philippines as a colony (& Puerto Rico as well btw). Europeans tear lumps out of each other and the USA stands to one side … & profits.
Moving back to the present: the rise of trump (& isolationism) started in 2007/2008 when as was observed, Obama saved Wall Street – not Main Street. To a certain extent – 2008 marked the end of neo-libs rise. The seeds for the rise of the neo-libs having been laid by Ray-gun and the idiot Clinton. Trump is just the result of their actions (or lack thereof).
Time that the Uk and the EU detached themselves from the embrace of the USA. Regarding Ukraine, the EU+UK together is more than capable of bringing the Ukraine war to a just end, they should also go after US corporations ref tax – which could be used to fund the EU/UK military – according to Trump the Euros don’t pay their way on military matters – well that’s fine – tax US corporates and they will. Objective: make life uncomfortable for USA Inc.
The USA is not & never has been a “friend” of Europe. Arguably, it is, a parasite – latched on and trying to weaken the host – without killing it.
Thank you and well said, Mike.
The US government operates a network of proxies around Europe to fight its corner. These range from think tanks (Marshall Fund), friendship societies (Franco-American Foundation), media, and student and future leader exchange and scholarship programmes (State Department)*.
In addition, US capital and its advisers, home grown, are increasingly prominent around Europe and exerting more influence, especially on Germany, on strategy, hiring (executive and en masse) and even compliance with regulations. US law firms are even opening in German business centres outside Frankfurt, e.g. Munich where private equity clustered.
US firms pay well, so also attract politicians and officials. Soon after the 2010 elections, many leading UK officials joined US banks. Soon after Denmark rotated out of heading the EU presidency in 2014, many of its leading officials joined US firms.
I have witnessed UK Treasury officials and City regulators offering information to US firms before others and closing down potential legal action against US firms.
*See how many Scottish politicians have been on them and stop wondering why independence is not happening.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
You mention Peter Thiel. Thiel is a major donor to the Blair organisation and, by extension, Labour. Thiel’s Palantir, as per https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/02/why-is-tony-blair-so-desperate-for-the-uks-national-health-service-to-sell-off-its-patients-health-data.html, has designs on the NHS and other arms of the state.
Most of the malign influences / string pullers behind Trump are to be found behind Labour. These people, like Murdoch, don’t care and can’t afford to care about party labels.
What’s even better is that the zionists and neo-cons are deserting Biden in favour of Trump, baying for Iranian blood, and think Starmer is on board for a war.
I’m looking forward to centrist and other Labour supporter heads explode when they find out that Starmer’s leadership team has been in talks with Trump and Le Pen for over a year. Starmer calls it “adult politics”. However, he refuses to meet the French left as he thinks the LFI is anti-semitic on account of its opposition to Israel.
Richard and readers will be delighted to hear that, on Monday evening, Reeves addressed the City at an event hosted by Blairite front Labour Together. The City got a heads up on the King’s speech etc., ideal for trading this afternoon, and made its views known on such matters, including interest on BoE deposits, employee protection, GB Energy’s giveaway, PFI etc. We the great unwashed don’t have this sort of access and influence. I don’t know why we think we live in a democracy. I now regret voting for the first time, tactically in favour of Labour in the Vale of Aylesbury, on 7 July.
I meant 4 July.
That does seem to be the choice – redistribution or drift towards fascism- Richard – but the way our flawed democracy seems to work – that choice is just not generally being discussed.
You say ‘we’ have to choose – but how can ‘we’ – if its not even evident.
Jonathan Cook, and Chomsky et al – argue that our media continually ‘grooms’ us in a subtler way than in Nineteen Eighty Four, so we end up censoring our own thoughts – and especially to exclude such a stark choice.
I do think there are internal contradictions in the system – such that crises will occur, when that choice will become very evident and stark. But it will then be an explicit and dangerous power struggle , the outcome of which will at least in part depend on the groundwork Richard and others on here and elsewhere are doing. .
.
Neoliberalism is an ideology. When we have ‘ologies’ we have problems, usually born of narcissistic tendencies on the part of the ology proposer. Judean’s Peoples Front, People’s Front of Judea…
I read many moons ago that the inequity of distribution of income/wealth was inversely linked to the literacy and numeracy standards in the upper centile.
Not sure if this is still true, but if it is then the rising inequity in income distribion has profound implications for the ability of the UK to maintain it’s position in the G20, let alone G7. As the elites numeracy and literacy falls with each generation, so it’s ability to retain it’s position become threatened, so as with climate change, the question is what kind of world do the ricjtwant their grandchildren to inherit. A burning misasma of violence, or a green, tranquil and well watered Eden. I’m hoping my grandchildren will see the latter, though I regret the greed of a few, seems to suggest the former is more likely. I actually daily to try to reduce my footprint, but we all need to do it, especially the most wealthy.
HI Richard,
I believe that Fascism/neoliberalism is built into the fabric of the Anglo-west. Back through history it seems that we have chosen to conquer and colonise, rather than collaborate. I put this down to our society of Monarchy and private land ownership. This is, of course, reinforced by the MSM, who amplify elitist groups within our society.
Russia, China, Iran, NK, Cuba, Venezuela etc are all given the tags as failed states. Putin, Xi Jin Ping, Chavez, Castro are all bogeymen, yet in their countries have provided some sort of free healthcare and free education. This is also the case for Iraq under Saddam, and Syria under Assad. This is no way an endorsement of the particular leaders of these countries, but I doubt if there is currently a more evil leader that Netanyahu, or country than Israel, yet our leaders are falling over themselves to support him.
The Anglo-west was against the Russian revolution and Communism because it presented a challenge to their neoliberal way of life. Some of those states above have adopted some forms of socialism, in order to improve the lives of their citizens.
If we are to avert our further fall into fascism/neoliberalism, then sensible discussion around how we have behaved, and how we view others, needs to happen. Our take on the world is outdated, and unproductive and needs to be revised. Any political party attempting this, will first have to deal with our MSM.
Regards
Thank you and VERY well said, Sean.
I have worked in Russia, China and Venezuela (even meeting Chavez in London) for HSBC and attended first communion in Syria. Do not trust what the MSM says about these countries.
“Do not trust what the MSM says about these countries.”
The MSM has an ambivalent relationship with countries such as China. It is often content to get into bed with the very people it most criticises. The Wall Street Journal has just sacked journalist Selina Cheng for advocating press freedom.
https://hongkongfp.com/2024/07/17/breaking-chair-of-hong-kong-journalists-association-selina-cheng-fired-by-wall-street-journal-weeks-after-election/
Just a further thought. I put the following line in the above piece:
“This is no way an endorsement of the particular leaders of these countries”
Of course, no where in the piece do I say I do endorse them, but normal discourse is so polarised I put it in without thinking.
I don’t imagine for one second, contributors to this blog would have assumed I did, but it is a reminder that elsewhere, putting forward an opinion that does not match the agreed narrative, is simply attacked without thought. As a result, almost every contrary point needs to have a disclaimer which becomes the norm, and seeps into conversations unconsciously.
Regards
Thank you, Sean.
I know what you mean and sympathise.
It’s similar to that Israel has a right to defend itself nonsense.
What you and I have said is never said outside the west. It is uniquely western. Westerners should ask themselves why?
Good question
Listening to ‘Sideways’ [https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00213vf] on the BBC this morning, it struck me how closely the Europeans who appropriated the Americas identified with the ‘Chosen People’, ‘Promised Land’ and ‘Manifest Destiny’ of the Old Testament.
Perhaps this partly explains the closeness of the tie to Israel?
Never mind that they called themselves Christians, who espouse an altogether different testament.
One of the most maddening things to me is that some mild social democracy and provisions from the state actually help the wealthy in some sense; there can be no capital to extract if your workforce, or the bulk of your nation, is not provided for. And equally, the slide into fascism creates political instability which in turns threatens wealth. But the super-rich seem to always side with incremental increases in already substantial wealth rather than overall stability.
“Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism.” – Rosa Luxemburg
And of course it was the SPD who had Luxemberg murdered, thereby preventing any possibility of solid left alliances in Weimar, and opening a door to fascism
The core issue is greed, and its corollary, contempt for other humans. Neoliberalism is the -ology of greed, a greed that will consume the human race. Part of its creed is the Victorian racist perversion of Darwin’s early ideas, that the richest are the most favoured in an environment of perpetual strife (a corruption of the term ‘fittest’). Despite plenty of evidence that humans have got this far by cooperation rather than conflict, once politicians – already greedy for power – ascend the ladder, they become (with a few exceptions) corrupted by the virus of greed. Greater control of others by persuasion or force becomes the outlook.
I suspect it is difficult for those whose philosophy is cooperative and egalitarian, whether expressed in religion or humanism, to view their greed-addled contemporaries with other than despair.
I’m not sure we can talk of neo-liberalism 100 years ago. It was more of the original liberalism but it did also develop a parallel feature. In the UK, and Bismarck’s Germany even earlier, forms of social insurance and more participation by the working population did take place. And it grew.
By joint and co-operative action we improved health, housing, education and so. We did achieve a lot but the tide turned 40 years ago with Thatcher and Reagan. Their heirs still have tremendous influence but their intellectual justification, as Richard has pointed out, at various times, is threadbare and its faults are there for all to see, Generations come and go which is a major reason why history doesn’t sit still.
To pick up on your point of co-operation , neo-liberalism is about selfishness and trying to co-opt the state for its own interest and deny it when it’s not. I look at Nazi Germany which developed some amazing new technology but their competing style of making strategy meant many of the new weapons never reached their potential. The Western allies did work together ( George Marshall and Alan Brooke had some tremendous arguments) but did agree strategies which worked.
Darwin, I am told, used the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ only a few times but in his book The Ascent of Man often make the point that humans could co-operate together and that raised them above other animals.
Because neo-liberal focuses on self interest it ignores the bigger picture (climate change?) and for that reason I have hope it will fail and be seen to fail. It is also possible it could drag us all down but we have to keep fighting and not give in to despair.
The phrase ‘The survival of the fittest’ was coined by Herbert Spencer and does not appear in the first edition of The Origin of Species, although Darwin did occasionally use the phrase later.
There is an interesting article about Spencer and the relationship between his and Darwin’s ideas here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/herbert-spencer-survival-of-the-fittest-180974756/
In Graeber & Wengrow’s seminal “The Dawn of Everything” the problem of “those whose philosophy is cooperative and egalitarian” is well addressed when the East Coast native Americans attitudes to Europeans was profiled (using Jesuit records from the 17th century). Summarising and extemporising: the locals regarded the Euros as clinically insane. Of course this did not help them (the locals) – cos being “nice” does not bring home the bacon when faced with people that have guns and later a greed-driven industrial revolution.
If you want to see a “commentary” on American locals & Euros, you will hardly do better than the 6 part series “The English”. Masterly.
I suspect some neoliberals – esp’ in the US – always understood that they were sowing discontent and division, with a view to something like Gilead (à la Handmaid’s Tale) emerging from the wreckage.
Further to what Sean and I have written, Richard and readers may be interested in what a friend has written: https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/the-past-is-another-country.
It’s good
Thank you, Richard.
I will let him know.
I thought it was excellent – a timely look back.
And
Thank god for this blog – one of the few places where ideas can be exchanged – & “booted around” in a civilised fashion.
Hat tip to Richard for having such a place & allowing us to realise that no we are not mad – this particular blog bit has illuminated this – well at least for me.
Thanks Mike
I never intended to create the space this blog has become
It is a labour of love, a constant (sometimes nagging) presence in my life
And I often wonder what the heck happens to it if the proverbial bus came along
Thoughts?
Yes, the bus that eventually comes along for all of us.
The blog seems to have the following parts:
1. the identification of a problem/issue and a summarising (mostly with a tax/finance focus – but not always)
2. moderation to keep the trolls out
3. funding
The first two rely on people (you!). Current affairs is not so hard for an ANOther – the tax/finance not so easy.
Perhaps this is something to kick around amongst regulars, perhaps off-line via e-mails.?
I will muse on that…
As only a suggestion, considering a large portion of many segments of society are “aspirational” to become rich. Perhaps terming the equitable solution could be to say tax the extreme wealthy or elite wealthy. A retiree of 67 with a pension a small suburban home and 500k in a bank could be described as well off and comfortable, but these days could never be described as wealthy or rich, even though he may wish to consider himself as such.
So saying tax the rich will draw no support from a person aspirational about being “rich”.
I’m suggesting another term like elite wealthy or extreme wealthy or outrageously wealthy could be a more precise and popular descriptions that could garner more support for the concept.
I never talk about the rich
I don’t even actually talk about taxing wealth, only sums derived from it
Yes taxing sums derived from wealth at whatever the standard rate is for income tax would be an equitable way of redistributing wealth. The hype I’ve seen continually over the years is “tax the rich” which seems to me a sell job aimed at aspirational rich for support by very wealthy individuals and or their adherents or supporters intent scuppering any form of equitable wealth redistribution.
Blimey. Where I live now £50k in the bank would be ‘well off’; where I was born £5k would be.
By definition fascists/libertarians want to avoid accountability to the many as opposed to the few. Scammer & Co try to avoid accountability and accordingly it is not unreasonable to say they are closet fascists/libertarians. So yes true democrats need to be worried especially since the bulk of the Labour Party’s funding is now coming from rich people not the trade unions.
Who is wealthy in your eyes? and so whose wealth are you trying to distribute and to whom?
Watch this https://youtu.be/0BhxrbswGTk?si=0xaVwT4dKlusn-rM