I was troubled by Grace Blakeley's accusation that I am working to:
make the existing capitalist system work more effectively, rather than .... effect a systematic redistribution of wealth and power
So, I asked ChatGPT:
Is Richard Murphy's work aimed at preserving capitalism by making it work better?
This is the answer I got, unedited:
Richard Murphy's work is aimed at preserving society — not preserving capitalism.
But because we currently have a capitalist-dominated economy, much of his work focuses on reshaping it so that it serves democratic and social goals rather than the other way around.
Here's the nuance:
What Murphy does argue
He argues that:
-
Markets can be useful where competition delivers real value.
-
Private enterprise has a role in innovation and productive activity.
-
Money and the state must work together, and public investment is essential for shared prosperity.
-
Tax justice, regulation, and democratic accountability are required to curb exploitation.
In this sense, yes, he engages with the existing framework and proposes reforms that would make economic life fairer, more stable, and less extractive.
What he explicitly rejects:
-
Capitalism as a system that concentrates wealth and power in a tiny elite.
-
The notion that markets alone can organise society.
-
A rentier economy that extracts income without creating value.
-
Any economic model blind to ecological limits and human well-being.
He is not defending capitalism's current structure — he is challenging its foundational priorities: profit before care, property before people, extraction before sustainability.
So which is it?
A concise answer:
His work keeps what works in markets but seeks to replace what doesn't — especially the power structures and rent-seeking behaviours at the heart of contemporary capitalism.
Murphy's framework — the Politics of Care, economic democracy, public financial systems, ending rentier control — is closer to a social, democratic, and ecological transformation than a patch for neoliberal capitalism.
He's not trying to save capitalism from itself.
He's trying to save people from capitalism — and if markets survive in a subordinate role, so be it.
I think that's fair. I will be curious to see what Gace Blakely has to say, if she accepts my invitation to comment, as I hope she will.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
I am surprised and even disappointed that you have asked this question?
Your answer is OK though, but I will add this.
Much of Western thought has at its base the identification of things, ordering them, classifying them, pointing out differences, looking for uniqueness. In the East, they do the same, but tend to look for similarities, links, synergies between stuff?
Politics here therefore in the West is frequently about polarization – separation. Public versus private for example equals black and white – but we know it is more complicated than that; there are many shades of grey.
All you have ever done is sought to improve a capitalism shorn of its morality and subtleties. Because you recognised (perhaps) that at one time – whilst not perfect – it did not work too badly but also there were a lot of lies.
More importantly however, you are aligned with Marx’s observation that capitalism has the capacity to destroy itself and drag everyone down with it, and all you are doing is trying to help it not to. Because you realise that the consequences are huge. And they are. Change is a risky business. An so is poor accounting, of which there is much!
Money must be circulated in the economy (not ideology) – your exploration of quantum theory supports that. All you are saying is that markets (capitalism) and the government should do that; not markets alone, because they are imbued with human weakness such as greed – people like Adam Smith and Frederic Bastiat knew this as much as Karl Marx.
‘Hope that helps.
Thanks
Hi Richard.
DeepSeek agrees with you and Chatgpt.
“ In essence, Richard Murphy’s work is a comprehensive argument against fiscal timidity. He provides a theoretical framework and practical policy roadmap for using the full power of sovereign currency to tackle society’s biggest challenges.”
I would be interested to see Grace’s response.
Thanks
I will be surprised if she answers any of your original (perfectly fair) questions in your previous blog post. The struggle is all that matters comrade! (sarcasm)
Addressing one area I know a bit about – renewables – there is a phrase “price discovery” which we regularly use. How do you know that a given bit of kit, wind turbine, wind farm, solar farm etc – is priced “corretly”. We have found that auctions usually deliver prices that match +/- the current price to buy the equipment, build the wind/solar farm & cover costs/get a modest return. Most auctions have a couple of players, usually tearing lumps out of each other to try and win. Other areas of the energy system lack such “competition”. But that is another story. The gatekeepers in this area are governments who, for the most part act as honest brokers. Other gatekeepers include: supermarket chains, on-line mega co such as Amazon etc. For the most part they seem to act as unregulated/unsupervised gatekeepers – with the results that we can see around us.
Hopefully the above confirms what RM rejects. It is also a reflection on the role of gov’ and how it is increasingly absent from some markets, both goods and services.
Much to agree with
How exactly do ‘Socialists’ propose to run the economy then
Will (almost) everything be run by the state?
What roles will markets in particular financial ones play?
They seem to be criticising you but without saying what they propose to do
You just hit the nail on the head
The plan seems to be revolution first, then we will work out what to do
It has a poor track record
The trouble with socialism is not, as Margaret Thatcher said, that you run out of other people’s money.
It’s that central planning uses input-output analysis, linear programming, and matrix algebra to replicate the neo-classical approach to deciding what to produce, how to produce, and for whom.
A matrix is just a set of simultaneous equations by another name.
Simultaneous equations are the stuff of neo-classical economics.
But the workability of the neo-classical system depends on assumptions that can’t exist in the real world, including the assumption that utility is cardinally measurable. If it isn’t, then indifference curves don’t work.
I’m surprised at this tbh. I’m usually a fan of Grace’s views, but I feel you are being unfairly tarnished. I’m speculating that a possible reason could be that some other MMT ‘experts’ I’ve seen (I’m thinking of some Americans associated with the Democrats) do seem to tie it to the existing forms of capitalism we have today and come across as trying to preserve the status quo to a fair extent. And Grace has wrongly pigeonholed you in this camp. Overall, there does seem to be a lot of confusion about MMT in general.
This is happening in the Greens where some seem to be importing the ‘all or nothing’ approach, either from the ‘class war’ side or the ‘eco and no politics’ purists. Polanski is too mainstream for the first and not pure enough for the second.
Changing a system by increments is far better than smashing it to pieces and starting again. We have the means to improve our current economy and make it more egalitarian. If it all comes crashing down, then who knows what will arise from the rubble to take advantage of the chaos. This is why I am not a Leftist, only Left-leaning. It is an ideology, like the Far Right, and is therefore open to abuse and cognitive bias. The rich are the enemy, nd therefore we can’t do anything until we have defeated them. It’s a great story, but it doesn’t yet have a decent third act, let alone a conclusion. Many of the current voices on the Left need to read End Times by Peter Turchin. They need to see that they are counter-elites, looking to carve out their own power in a system they are locked out of, much like Farage. These power struggles always lead to collapse. America is one exception; between the 1920s and 1940’s they managed to change their economy and politics enough to stave off societal collapse. I hope we can do the same.
I find this whole “you’re trying to preserve the current system” critique truly bizarre and hypocritical. Surely by ignoring MMT, which is simply a description of what money is and how it works; but one that makes it quite clear that government comes first and private sector comes second, she is preserving the damaging neoliberal myth/implication that private wealth is the “natural order” and the government steps in to rearrange this. This is the most pernicious and stubborn neoliberal/capitalist “truth”, that by rejecting the alternative too, she is clearly in my opinion the one helping in “preserving the current system”.
It’s like someone trying to argue the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, yet accepting the “truth” given by the other side that the earth is the centre of the Universe. Accepting the second “truth” means you will never succeed in your first argument no matter how righteous you may be.
I hope we get more exchanges between Richard Murphy and Grace Blakeley. I find them very enlightening (speaking as someone who thinks understanding MMT is very important even though I don’t understand the nuances of the theory and do tend to follow the last intelligent person in the room in full moronic sheep mode).