No one talks about extreme centrists. They should, because they're the people who want to maintain the status quo when it's glaringly obvious that we need change.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Lots of politicians like to claim that they are in the centre of the political spectrum.
Some of them will say they're centre right?
Some of them will say they're centre left.
Some will just say they're in the centre.
The fact is that as far as I can see, they're all extremists, and that really worries me.
We have a political phenomenon now, which I am describing as extreme centrism, and extreme centrism is in fact what we used to call conservatism.
Extreme centrism is all about maintaining the status quo. It is managerialism by any other name. It is where politicians are saying, "Trust me, I'm a safe pair of hands because I will keep the ship steady."
But the reality is that the ship is heading for the rocks.
That's not just true in the UK. That's true in the USA. That's true in Europe, in many cases. We don't need people with a steady hand on the tiller anymore. We need somebody who's got the nouse to actually swing us hard to starboard, or port, if you would prefer and, by and large, I would because as I recall it, port is on the left. And the reason why we need somebody who's going to swing us hard to port is that we need to change the way in which our societies are structured.
After 45 years of neoliberalism, more of the same is not going to deliver any benefit for us; more of the same is actually taking us to hell in a handcart.
We know that we are burning the planet.
We know that we are increasing wealth inequality.
We know that it is not producing benefits for society.
We know that we are not increasing the incomes of most people who are on average wages.
We know that we can't tax those people more.
We know, as a consequence, we have to increase tax on the wealthy.
But the centrists, the extreme centrists, say we can't do that.
We know that we have to transform, therefore, the way we manage the economy, if we are going to get a better outcome. And yet what these extreme centrists say is, "trust me, I'm going to do what we did before, and everything will be okay."
It was Albert Einstein who was credited with saying that keeping on doing the same thing and hoping that the next time you do it, you might get a different outcome from the one you got before, which you didn't like, is a definition of madness. And that is what the extreme centrists are trying to offer to us.
They are basically offering us a form of economic madness. Even though nothing works, they believe in delivering more of it.
My argument is we don't need the extreme centre anymore, and I don't care whether we're talking about the centre right, the centre, or the centre left, they're all pretty much identical because they're all neoliberal politicians, and they're all offering, with minor differences, the same prescription, which is, as I've already said, more of the same.
We want less of the same, and we want more of something different. And we are hearing that message from people in the UK and around the world. They're saying, we've had enough of this failed system. We know it's failed. Nothing works anymore, they're saying. And that's why they're moving to the far-right, because it's the only place where they seem to be able to find somebody who says it's not working.
And because the far-right are the only people who are willing to say it's not working, they're picking up support, even though their prescription is, if anything, very much worse, and very much more dangerous than that which the extreme centrists are offering.
So what we need is a shift to the left.
I definitely do not mean a shift to the far-left.
We have a threat from the far-right in the UK. I have no desire to see a threat from the far-left.
I am not in any shape or form convinced that we need to have a government that is dedicated in this country to the ownership and control of all the means of production, for example, by the workers, whoever the workers might be, and however we might define them.
That is not necessary. We live in a mixed economy. We should have a mixed economy. People want to live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean to say we have a non-performing government.
Over a decade ago, I wrote a book called The Courageous State. In that book, I argued that what we need are courageous politicians who actually believe that they're elected to office to deliver for the well-being of the people of the country who have voted for them.
And a courageous politician says, I have an entitlement to make change. I have an entitlement to claim resources out of this economy because I believe they can be better used by the government than the market sector. I believe that we collectively can make better decisions than individuals can for themselves because we collectively can see the consequences of our actions in a way that individuals rarely can. We collectively can deliver for the communal well-being because there are some things which quite simply we can never deliver for ourselves.
For example, and it's a very straightforward one, but it remains totally relevant, none of us can afford to have our own fire brigade. As a matter of fact, each of us owning a fire engine would be completely pointless. We can only provide an effective fire service if we do it communally.
The same is true for education and healthcare, and so many other things, including housing, when access to housing has been denied to so many because of the consequences of neoliberal economics, which is that house prices have gone out of reach.
So we have to act together. And when I say I want a government that is left of centre, what I mean is a government who believes that they have the right to deliver for this collective whole, whilst leaving people sufficient resource, of course, to do what they need for themselves.
This isn't a struggle between the two. There isn't a tension, necessarily. There's only a symbiotic system of creation, which we can put into place by joining together the best of the state and the best of the private sector and the best of our individual creativity.
The extreme centrist doesn't understand that. The extreme centrist wants to carry on with the belief that the market is the only way to meet our needs, and it isn't. And that's why extreme centrists are so dangerous.
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!
For me, the clearest demonstration of centrist extremism came last year in France, when Macron co-operated with the left Front Populaire to electorally defeat the right-wing RN, but when this produced not a centrist, but a left victory, he broke constitutional convention by not appointing a Front Poplualire government (even though its proposed candidate for PM, Lucie Castets, explicitly acknowledged the need for continued compromise with the centrists) and instead tried to form a more right-leaning government. Conclusion: centrists will discard democracy, constitution and parliamentary convention if they think the status-quo is threatened. They are just as ‘extreme’ as any other part of the political spectrum – it’s just that their extremism is generally disguised behind the familiarity of things as they are.
Much to agree with
Thank you and well said, both.
Coming across centrists in the day job, they like to say they are not ideological or are post-ideological and focus on “getting things done”. Centrists are far from not ideological. Their so called competence leaves a lot to be desired.
Put it this way, few, if any, of them in politics and in bureaucracies have the knowledge and competence of the likes of Richard, Mike Parr, PSR, Robin Stafford, Clive Parry and John S Warren. Their job is to front up for oligarchs, schmooze their way to the top and make money. Governance and social justice, people and planet are not on their agenda.
Thanks, and agreed. I hate that claim.
“Richard, Mike Parr, PSR, Robin Stafford, Clive Parry and John S Warren.”
What a political force that would make..
Agreed.
Extremism is not listening, closing one’s ears to:
Hunger
Pain
Fear
Brutality
Unfairness
Poverty
The list is seemingly endless.
In response to Barbara & for the avoidance of doubt: “man’s gotta know his limitations” quoting the man with no name.
I would make a very very very bad politician (probably make a good Stalin…..).
We need a blend of the political and the practical/realistic. At the moment we have money grubbers pretending to be politicos.
I am & will remain focused on practical stuff (hands up who is interested in silicon carbide?) and output to the politicals to make life easier for those that.. want to make life easier for others. I am an engineer that is happy to engage with politicians that are able to listen. I am certain that Richard is the same with respect to political economy.
I am temperamentally unsuited to frontline politics. Sorry….
Richard wrote:
“I am not in any shape or form convinced that we need to have a government that is dedicated in this country to the ownership and control of all the means of production, for example, by the workers, whoever the workers might be, and however we might define them.”
That is a description of the authoritarian left, which believes power should be imposed from above.
The people of Chiapas in Mexico and Rojava in Syria have found a new left paradigm which is centred around direct democracy mediated through local people’s assemblies with all policy decisions being made by the people affected and the upper levels of government only responsible for coordination. In these systems power flows from the bottom up.
Murray Bookchin’s “Social Ecology” and Abdullah Ocalan’s “Beyond State, Power, and Violence” lay out the theoretical groundwork for these systems for those interested in pursuing the ideals.
“That is a description of the authoritarian left, which believes power should be imposed from above.”
no That’s the definition of Socialism which, in principle, should be an egalitarian system.
The problem, apart from how one would actually make it work in practice, is how to get to it from a capitalist system and, given capitalists, those in power, are unlikely to simply rollover and say let’s try that then, it requires revolution in some form and revolutionary regimes tend to authoritarianism, it’s very hard to overthrow existing power systems and impose new ones without being pretty authoritarian about it.
Whilst there have been odd historical examples of dictators who, having got things working to their satisfaction, have stepped down but it’s extremely rare.
There is an element of truth to the saying “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and overthrowing a system like capitalism requires something close to absolute power.
I am not advocating socialism, and won’t. That’s an outdated, materialist ideology that cannot deliver for the 21 centurry.
I agree, Richard, that socialism is an oudated concept and a pejorative word for many people who confuse it with communism. In which case, we need a few concise words to describe the new approach to the hard of thinking, so that people, always short of time, begin to understand where we are trying to get to. I can think of Equality, Social Justice and a Fair Deal from the state as being paramount and fairly easy to grasp.
Care, in a word
I’m in favour of change – far more people are struggling than should be.
At the same time, I’m cautious. There are some calls for change which would wipe out the efforts of groups that have tried hard and maintained modest spending to build something.
If enough people benefit then that cost mat be justifiable, but it may not be particularly fair.
E.g. crashing property prices to help many without supporting those pushed into negative equity.
This tends to lead to asking how to squeeze the top deciles of wealth without squeezing the middle much, because you can at least say the real beneficiaries of historic unfairness are the truly rich, and they are also the ones who most clearly have ‘undeserved’ benefits beyond what might be considered a reasonable reward for effort, success, etc.
I think a crucial difference between the mainstrem parties and your vision for the country is that your model acknowledges the inevitability of the unexpected—and seeks to build a system that can respond to it rather than be destabilised by it.
Are you an extremist?
Far from it. I am a compassionate human being who wants the country to work for all who do and might live here.
Ms Gove (related?), Mr Murphy is an extermist & an extremely irritating one at that.
He is extreme in his reasonableness (he even puts up with imbeciles like me) perhaps not quite the patience of Job but nonetheless fair minded in the extreme.
So there we have it, J’accuse – Mr Murphy is an extremist as per your speculative question.
BTW: did you know that in Norway their power system is in fact a fence against trolls (the Swedish Prime Minister admitted as much) perhaps you found a way around the fence?)
(ref: Trollhunter – hilarious & sad by turns – you need to see the end ref PM).
🙂
If I am an extremist so were the entire Labour Party front bench when I was a teenager, and none were, imo
“So what we need is a shift to the left.”
Framing is all. Putting a label on something gives the dishonest a lever. E.G.:-
Clean rivers for all. (hands up those against this?). Only possible to be delivered by state owned companies, because the 30 year “experiment” on private water companies has failed (one turd or two sir in your river?) and proved that private water companies CANNOT be regulated. Thus – what people deserve & want (c= lean rivers), failure mode (= private companies) what works = state ownership.
The above applied to ALL monopoly services (gas, elec, transport (trains & buses). It also applies to education and health.
This is not Left or Right – it is the state making sure that ALL citizens have access to adequate services (that are priced fairly)
The framing is thus: over the past 30 odd years, privaet companies have had a chance to operate what were formerly state owned & controlled monopolies. They failed. Totally. The state is going to take back control because of this total failure. The state will reinforce its control in other areas, such as education and health – where creeping privatisation likewise is degrading service provision and dividing society into haves & have nots.
I’d suggest that this framing give no weapons to the defenders of neo-libtardism by focusing on what the state doe, what it HAS to do s & what citizens expect.
Thank you and well said, Mike.
It’s interesting to hear Villepin speak like that in France.
Mike
I need some information from you regarding this idea about locally located energy provision that you have given a few examples of.
Would you be ok to send me some info. There is a valid reason.
Thanks,
PSR
Mike
Might I put you two in touch?
Richard
Mike Parr
I agree absolutely with your comments about the state ensuring access to all monopoly services plus education and health. Effectrively, I think, you are referring to the services that are fundamental to life. I have often struggled to understand why I, personally, and no-one else whose views I have read, do not include food in that.
Would you like to comment?
I am not convinced that would work. State farming has a dire record….
There’s a lot wrong with food production in the widest sense, including in agriculture.
But after 15yrs working as a farm vet at the end of the last century, if farmers are given the right incentives, and the right regulations, they are incredibly adaptable, including to new technology and a changing climate.
The government’s role is to use grants, taxes and regulations to achieve, incentivise and regulate the food production (and land utilisation) that the nation needs. We (UK) used to do that fairly well, the EU used to do that (with lots of flaws), but the UK nowadays does not have a food security strategy and things are getting worse.
Issues:
Environmental sustainability
Monopolistic land ownership (huge shooting estates, agri-business, corn barons).
Food retailing, monopolies, exploitation of producers by food industry.
Ideological extremism at both end of the political spectrum – animals have a place in sustainable agriculture.
Catastrophic absence of effective regulation at all levels, from field to factory to table/supermarket shelf/restaurant, including my area of enforcement which was animal welfare.
The current situation, for a variety of reasons, including Brexit, political corruption, local government financial and political defenestration, veterinary professional sellout to venture capital, neoliberal hegemony, monopolistic land ownership by titled gentry or global corporation, and public ignorance (fostered by those in “power”) is unrecognisable as compared to when I left the field (literally) in 1991.
But collective state agriculture is NOT the answer. The best farmers are the ones with a close link to land that they know well, who farm for the future (why else would you plant an oak tree?), who care about the environment, who farm because they are in love with it.
Long term intimate relationships with an environment, be that a (securely) tenanted marginal hill farm, or a large estate, are necessary for good farming, for sustainability, for wildlife, for healthy ecosystems.
But that doesn’t prevent government regulating and taxing to achieve goals that are good for everyone, and ignoring the fake howls of privileged anguish from those who profit enormously from the status quo, whenever someone talks about inheritance tax, or CGT or enforcing environmental sustainability.
Footnote: all this is different in Scotland (but not necessarily better) -my experience is in England although my veterinary education was in Scotland.
Thanks
Appreciated
Monbiots Regenesis Chapter 4.
Not state farming, but local farming supplying local needs, could even be a collective or… community interest company. If 8 hectares can supply the +/- yearly needs (fruit & veg) of 500 families then this could be something to consider since it offers direct competition to the usual suspects. Need to strike a balance between localism & centralism – at the moment, it is ALL centralism.
The mega farms of East Anglia are mechanisms for mass destruction, eventually.
The origin of left versus right description goes back to the French revolution, revolutionaries versus aristocrats. Like everything else in our “democratic” system it is woefully inadequate as a tool for analysis, because it is one-dimensional. This suits the parties who need bundled policies to appeal broadly.
If we abolish bundled policies then we could better reflect the complex world of the 21st century. This would require people to vote on specific policies. It would also curtail the power of the Treasury, which is deeply opposed to letting the people hypothecate taxes to benefits/communal needs.
A true multi-dimensional analysis would at least distinguish:
1. Communal policies vs. individual ones (akin, but not identical, to socialist vs. capitalist)
2. Forward-looking, progressive policies vs. reactionary, keep-things-as-they-are-or-even-look-backwards policies.
3. The people vs. the establishment (i.e. those wielding absolute power).
On this 3×2 definition, your extreme centrists are capitalist, keep-things-as-they-are-or-even-look-backwards, part of or pro-establishment.
This is just a starter of the possibilities, once we move beyond simplistic descriptions. It could be extended to abolitionists vs. monarchists, the mass population vs. the ultra-wealthy, mixed economy vs. free-for-all, giving us a six-dimensional model.
Neo-liberalism is aligned with an extremity.
Mr Kauders – very good indeed & I fully agree with the analysis. Excellent I will keep it.
“Left-Right” is a metaphor, people generally tend to think in metaphors but they rarely accurately describe the real world in detail, especially if they’re taken too far
“hypothecate taxes to benefits/communal needs.”
That’s conservative thinking, “no you can’t have the new hospital that people desperately need because the hypothecated tax has run out” (or “people won’t be willing to pay a high enough rate of the hypothecated tax to fund it”).
Currency issuing governments do not need tax for revenue, the situation where someone runs from HMRC to the treasury with a bundle of tenners saying “D J Kauders has paid his tax bill, you can start building that new hospital now” never happens, that’s simply not how the monetary system works.
Hypothecated tacxes are the enemy of democracy – and are built on the logic that taxes actually fund government. They don’t. The are macroeconomic management tools.
I like your blogs but I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to have a go at the far left when actually all of the left needs to unite at the moment
The far left are as dangerous as the far right
Is that good enough reason?
Extremism is…
Complicity in genocide and other war crimes
An economic policy based on the lie that taxes finance gov’t spending and the lie that budgets must balance, and the lie that the UK can run out of money
Actively increasing child poverty
Actively increasing inequality
Destroying academic freedom through control of the curriculum, staffing and student expression
Equating democratic protest with terrorism
Filling rivers and beaches with sewage
Pushing disabled and chronically ill people into poverty
Denying old people social care
Reducing overseas aid
Ignoring the climate crisis
Creating MORE nuclear waste without knowing how to deal with it
Pricing domestically produced renewable energy at world gas prices
Making the poor pay to preserve the wealth of the rich
Blowing racist dogwhistles at every opportunity
Selling party policymaking to the highest bidder
Lying and deceipt as a primary political tool
Regularly breaking and planning to break international law
The list could be longer, but IMHO, these are all extremist political choices being made right now, by “centrist” Labour. I dont remember a government this extreme, and I was a young man when Thatcher was PM, Keith Joseph was Education Secretary, and Leon Brittan was Home Secretary.
Starmer’s government is more extremist than they were.
I am, for the first time in my life, AFRAID of the extremist UK government. Afraid of their authoritarian ruthlessness and contempt for the citizen, and afraid of the results of their extremist incompetence.
Much to agree with.
And thank you.
“There is no ideology of the “center.” What is called a “centrist” or a “moderate” is actually very different — a bi-conceptual, someone who is conservative on some issues and progressive on others, in many, many possible combinations. “…………………
“When a Democrat “moves to the center,” he is adopting a conservative position — or the language of a conservative position. Even if only the language is adopted and not the policy, there is an important effect. Using conservative language activates the conservative view, not only of the given issue, but the conservative worldview in general, which in turn strengthens the conservative worldview in the brains of those listening. That leads to more people thinking conservative thoughts, and hence supporting conservative positions on issues and conservative candidates. ” -The “New Centrism” and Its Discontents, George Lakoff, 2011
https://george-lakoff.com/2011/01/25/the-new-centrism-and-its-discontents/
Mike Parr wrote, “Hands up who is interested in silicon carbide?”
I took the hint and I’ve read a bit on Wikipedia but, yes please, Mike, tell us how we can find out why you are excited about it.
Silicon carbide (SiC) is a wide band gap semiconductor, but what does this mean practicalities wise?
The headline features are, that it can withstand larger voltages than silicon and can operate at higher temperatures than silicon (~500oC vs 100oC), and therefore requires less cooling than Si to remain operational.
SiC also has considerably lower off-state current leakage than Si, which means that it does less self heating that Si when turned off
What this means, all together, is that SiC is a more attractive candidate for high-power electronics than Si, which is why I assume Mike Parr is excited by it.
On the other hand, there are some processing issues with SiC, which reduces its reliability/ease of fabrication over Si. As you might be able to tell, I am also interested in SiC (and in fact I’m waiting to hear back on a small funding proposal to investigate gate-stack reliability in SiC devices)
One final note to this post: the reason we use Si for almost all of our electronics isn’t that it is electronically superior to other semiconductors. It is in fact because it’s native oxide (SiO2), which is the passivating layer that is grown on the Si to isolate individual devices, etc, is of such high quality. It is the oxide, and not the semiconductor itself that has made Si the dominant choice (plus the 60+ years of fabrication optimisation, which is incredibly difficult to directly translate across to other materials platforms)
Happy to clarify any of the above if I’ve started too technically 🙂
I found that interesting
In Switzerland, there were two federal referendums about transport:
(a) One (24 November 2013) was to increase the motorway tax from CHF 40 to CHF 100 per annum, with an exception for tourists crossing Switzerland, and spend the proceeds on new motorways. 60.5% of the people voting said “No”. All cantons had a majority against the proposition.
(b) Then on 9 February 2014 a referendum to raise federal taxes and spend the increase on capital investment in the railways passed with 62% of the votes and all but one canton in favour.
We can see that hypothecation, letting people relate taxes to expenditure, works. It involves the people.
This does not invalidate Richard’s point about government not needing taxes to fund expenditure. Taxes are just another source of revenue.
Sorry, but that’s pretend hypothecation (the whole system isn’t) and my point stands: this denies the reality of tax.
Absolutely Brilliant 🙂
I couldn’t agree more.
(Neoliberal politicians are phobic of governing.)
Thanks RM.
An exceptional post-with-comments, thank you Richard, Mike Parr, Robert J, DJ Kauders and others.
I’m glad to hear Robert J thinks most farmers are adaptable and care about the land, that is my feeling about farmers who farm their own land. I read ‘Regeneration’ with trepidation in the winter, having been put off by a ‘farmers are the problem’ headline. I found it interesting and sobering, despite my lingering reservations; there is a lot of data there, and the descriptions of different food production systems, from low-input organic to bacterial protein in Finland, were informative. Of the latter, I immediately thought ‘ if only this doesn’t get captured by big business’, which the author also notes. I follow Ridgedale farm in Sweden (Richard Perkins) once in a while, and still think mixed farming is very suited to many places.
I look forward to better batteries and am interested to hear people talking about referenda – I have wondered about voting on issues (like climate change, NHS funding for example) but the devil is in the detail – the wording, and barring negative, harmful and discriminatory ideas. Clearly the ‘extreme centrists’ will have no truck with such ideas, but many people want a well-funded NHS for example, it is something that unites people across political lines, it engages people who don’t feel voting serves a purpose. I would be interested to hear what others here say about voting on issues such as how we best provide clean water, good free healthcare, infrastructure to slow climate change, respect and support for all who dwell on these islands.
I am frightened. I appreciate that others admit this too. And I appreciate that people care and say so, and put forward ideas in this space (and of course in others, thanks for the links).
I’m off soon to see my family in Scandinavia, it will be interesting to see what the world looks like to them.
Thanks
I am reminded of the question put to AJP Taylor during the 1974 election on the need for moderation. “The last refuge of scoundrels “ was his reply.
Management is a tough business requiring sometimes brutal changes of direction.
Centrists and apolitical placemen only skilled at pleasing the most people in positions of power over them are not what the country needs.
There’s nothing moderate about austerity. It kills my neighbours.
Very alarmed that you take the “ownership is not important” line. That’s the epitome of extreme centrism. Also the comment on socialism as a materialist philosophy seems to imply you are confusing it with Marxism, which is only one type of socialism. In this country there’s effectively a socialist tradition going way back, partly inspired by Christianity, often running underground, but coming to the surface with the upsurge in Christian mysticism (the same movement that spawned the Quakers) during the Interregnum, with groups such as the Diggers (the earth as a common treasury). Personally, I’m a humanist, but I would say that socialism should follow from moral considerations, as should any political philosophy, and not from some form of materialistic theory of history. There are many forms of socialism, and you are tarring all with the same brush.
The fact is, ownership is CRUCIAL. It’s an essential issue with many of the issues we face, from AI to the climate emergency to the undermining of democracy. Indeed, without completing the progressive project, and going for economic as well as political democracy, I’d say the Enlightenment project of building societies that work for the many and not the few is doomed to fail. That’s because those with economic power (meaning control of resources, including the resources you need to create more resources) use that power to buy political power (meaning the power to make and enforce the rules), while those with political power use it to steal economic power. The two forms of power naturally converge, and indeed have converged in most post hunter-gatherer human societies.
This is explained here: https://gezwinstanley.wordpress.com/rage-rage-against-the-dying-of-the-light/ .
Warning: that could be a troubling read, though not as troubling as the reality we increasingly have to wake up to each day, sadly.
We will have to disagree.
There is good reason why thinking of your sort has never worked, and that is precisely because it denies human nature. In fact, it offends human nature.
Your problem is you are obviously equating ownership with capitalism and exploitation, and so neoliberalism. No it isn’t. Nor is the market the same as those things. Ownership is about responsibility, nurturing and care. They are corollaries of ownership; everything has two sides to the equation, and you are denying that. Meanwhile, markets are about sharing.
Respectfully, please don’t accuse me of what I am not saying. I take offence at that with good reason. You do not have the right to make up claims about me that are unrelated to what I think.
Socialism has a precise definition which RM gave, social ownership of the entire means of production, one could add in, proposes that economic systems undergo some sort of pseudo Hegelian transformation and believing that there’s a secularly declining rate of profit that contributes to increasing numbers of crises over time but anything beyond the basic definition is just dressing.
One can use it as a verb ,in which case, anything vaguely leftish can be described as a bit socialist (note lower case s), which is used by Republicans in the US to denounce anything vaguely socially progressive as socialism.
A lot of older “left-ish” politicians like to call themselves Socialists but what they propose is not Socialism, Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn being two obvious examples.
…”pseudo Hegelian transformation and believing that there’s a secularly declining rate of profit that contributes to increasing numbers of crises”.
Sorry, that’s specifically Marxism! I know the Marxists like to describe themselves as the alpha and omega of socialism, but they aren’t.
[…] By Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of the Corporate Accountability Network. Originally published at Funding the Future. […]