Grace Blakeley has commented on the posts I made over the weekend (here, here, here and here) on her Substack, which is free to access. Doing so, she chose to do three things:
- Not tell me she had replied to my comments.
- Not share her comments here, as I invited her to do.
- Not answer any of the reasonable questions I asked in a spirit of curiosity.
I guess that's what I should have expected, given that she has declared me an enemy in her class struggle, but it was disappointing, nonetheless, most especially as I had tried from the outset to make clear I was seeking to discuss ideas, and nothing else. I will still try to do that, although I accept it is getting harder now it is clear that I am apparently her enemy and she will not make clear what might happen to me as a consequence when she wins her "class struggle".
That said, let me address what she has written on Substack.
In summary, in my opinion, the response:
- Is patronising (most especially to those in the working class who she clearly sees as cannon fodder in her class struggle, but who are not, in her opinion, worthy of being informed of, or educated about, what it is that they might be fighting whilst being denied the right to know about MMT, which could, as I explain in a video this morning, ensure all their needs are met).
- Is riddled with ad hominem attacks.
- Includes violent imagery, which compounds my concerns about my personal safety as a result of the threats I think implicit in what Grace has written.
- Fails to answer any of my quite genuine questions, including as to what my fate might be for being her chosen, supposedly capitalist, enemy in her class warfare if she were to win the "struggle".
- Is internally incoherent.
However, in a spirit of generosity (despite the venom aimed in my direction), let me note Grace (whose first name I will continue to use, since that is how I would greet her if we met again, even though she persistently refers to me as Murphy), saying this:
Needless to say, I have never made any of these arguments [Murphy claims I support]. Those with a sophisticated understanding of MMT would find it easy to refute each any of these points - which is precisely why Richard chose them. As far as I'm concerned, MMT is an entirely internally-consistent theory - and one which largely describes the operation of fiscal and monetary policy correctly. My issue is that proponents of MMT have an utterly incoherent view of state power under capitalism.
So, to let me summarise:
- Even though her own first response to the arguments I made on Friday (here), rather bizarrely, and I presume inadvertently, confirmed that all the arguments I had made were justified and were typical of those she and others use, she now says otherwise.
- She now claims a superior knowledge of MMT, presumably seeking to put me in my place. After all, what do I know?
- She confirms that MMT is right in all it says.
- But, she then says, those who promote MMT, despite it being correct, are necessarily seeking to maintain rentier capitalism and are, as a result, enemies of the working class, even if MMT is entirely correct.
- That is, apparently, because the state as it now is has been, in her opinion, irretrievably corrupted by capitalism, presumably requiring the overthrow of the state as we now have it through the class struggle she now promotes in workplaces, communities and on the streets, which I can only presume means that there is to be a direct confrontation with democracy in any form that we now recognise it, and it is this need that we do not understand - because I am genuinely confused as to what else it is that I do not comprehend.
Grace then summarises her argument by saying:
Murphy is not a socialist. But you can still be a socialist and agree with many of the precepts of Modern Monetary Theory (I count myself among this group). A socialist, however, would realise that those precepts were secondary to the broader project of building power from below.
Socialists who sympathise with MMT have a strategic decision to make: do they spend decades trying to teach people how government spending really works, while much more powerful forces preach the common sense argument that the government is like a household, and can only spend as much as it earns? Or do they spend their limited time and resources supporting people to win the battles that they are already fighting in their communities, in their workplaces, and on the streets - and advance a policy agenda that supports them in these struggles? Less ‘learn MMT'; more ‘freeze the rent', ‘strengthen workers rights', and ‘public ownership now'.
I actually believe this question has a much broader relevance for the left. At issue is what kind of project the socialist movement really is. Is it a technocratic, paternalistic project, aimed at electing a new managerial class capable of administering capitalist institutions more effectively? Or is it a democratic, popular movement, aimed at supporting people to take back control over their lives? In my mind, it always has been, and always will be the latter. Which means socialists need to spend less time teaching, and much more time listening.
I would argue that what I do here, and what I propose, is the exact opposite of a technocratic, paternalistic project. My aim is always to:
- Say what the problems we face are
- Explain why they exist
- Identify what power structures maintain them
- Suggest what solutions can be offered to achieve better outcomes
- Detail what those better outcomes might be
- Persuade people that change is, in fact, in their best interests.
Quite simply, I aim to provide people with agency, power and the right to decide for themselves.
In contrast, Grace:
- Does not believe people want to learn, or have things explained to them, as this comment posted on her Substack suggests:
Push back against austerity arguments? Absolutely – I've been doing so my whole career!
Force people to sit down a listen to an economics class about monetary financing? I don't think so – few would listen, and many of those who did wouldn't understand. It's just not a solid foundation for a mass political movement.
- Is treating working-class people with contempt as a result.
- Is paternalistic, by definition, as a consequence of that attitude.
- Is denying them agency as a result.
- And is recruiting people as cannon fodder for her campaign of "class struggle" without explaining what the alternatives are, why anyone should support her choice, or what they can expect from it, which is contemptuous, in my opinion.
The last thing I can see Grace Blackley doing is recognising people's agency.
There is much else I could say, but I will do so from now on without reference to Grace, her declaration that I am an enemy of working people with the threats implicit in that, and her obvious contempt for working people, all of which I think are profoundly unsavoury and suggest to me:
- She is no believer in democracy
- She is no friend of the working class, and
- She, along with others who share her views, is a profound threat to the electoral credibility and prospects of the Green Party if it provides her or them with a platform for their "class struggle," with everything that implies.
It's time to move on. Answers are needed, and Grace Blakeley has none, so I had better work on them instead.
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!
That’s a really good piece from Grace, thanks for sharing the link.
She does agree with the MMT framework then. That must be a relief for you.
I am not sure how you could reach that conclusion.
She agrees MMT is right and then says those espousing it are enemies and it must not be taught to the working class. The thought “how very Leninist” did, to be candid, come to mind.
My understanding of that article is that Grace (correctly) identifies the fact that MMT is just a framework and is not inherently left wing in nature. Even if it was widely accepted that does not mean policy would not still be skewed to benefit the rich.
If it’s not political why suggest those explaining it are enemies of the working class then?
I think you have seriously misunderstood the debate on this.
“Cannon Fodder” Marxists about sums up the likes of Grace Blakeley, James Meadway and Paul Mason. It also sums up those in power in China!
I do hope Zack Polanski is reading these posts as well as other members of the Green Party.
Unfortunately, Grace does not have the grace to recognise that that you are practically pursuing the dissemination of vital knowledge / information that would inform people and, possibly, actively do something about it via the ballot box, write to local politicians, get involved in community organisations, etc.
Neither does she have the grace to recognise that, in her undoubted commitment to ‘socialism’, she espouses a similar arrogance to the aristocracy, etc., that looked down their noses at those of a lower order, i e., they don’t have the intelligence, what they think is irrelevant, etc.
It is a shame that Grace has not recognises that she has a ‘source’ of practical knowledge, with proffered solutions and options, is clearly of a politically left persuasion, etc. She could have put it to good use but, alas, she is clearly close-minded and only her ‘pure’ version of her views has any legitimacy and democracy is essentially irrelevant.
You’ve wasted enough time on her. Use your energies to look after yourself and pursue your chosen path of trying to educate, inform and provide practical options for consideration. Most of all, take care of yourself.
Thanks
Sadly this comes about time and time again
As satirised in at least two Monty Python films
Life of Brian and Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Take an evening off and watch them with the team!
I’m very disappointed with this whole debate to be honest.
Two people on the left of politics, broadly pushing in the same direction, broadly agreeing with other, yet getting into a not particularly pleasant row about whose approach is better than the others when they aren’t even remotely mutually exclusive.
I generally agree with both of you (not everything, but that’s fine, politics should be about directions, not nirvanas), but my focus will definitely be more aligned with yours, i.e spreading the MMT lens, as that’s an area that is of more interest to me and I’m more knowledgeable on. Others will focus on other areas. But to come to the conclusion that Grace has that essentially reads to me as “this is not what I consider to be the absolute most important element of what I am trying to achieve and therefore anyone espousing it is doing the wrong thing and damaging the cause” is absolutely bizarre. Also the stuff about people not understanding it is very patronising. Essentially saying “I understand this, but the norms won’t so we shouldn’t worry their little brains with it”.
Teaching MMT to those who are interested and have the capacity to understand has to be a good thing to do.
It will likely take many different approaches to defeat the curent right wing thinking
God this sort of thing is hard to watch. Two intelligent people broadly on the left with actually quite similar views about a lot of things resorting to bickering and name calling instead of working together. No wonder we’re all screwed.
She is wrong to say that you believe simply telling politicians the truth about how the economy works will magically fix everything. Nowhere do you say that, it would be a ridiculous thing to believe. They like things as they are.
You are wrong to say she is calling you an enemy of the people. At worst she is saying trying to teach MMT is a waste of time and a distraction. Nowhere in her post does she threaten your personal safety.
You both apparently agree that MMT is an accurate description of the economy. You both agree that the current neoliberal system is failing all of us (apart from those at the top). You both agree that a much more left wing/socialist approach is needed. As far as I can see the only slight disagreement is that you emphasis the importance of MMT, and specifically of explaining MMT, more than she would, which is understandable given both your backgrounds.
Maybe have an actual conversation rather than talking past each other with ever more aggressive articles.
Yours frustratedly
The people
Politely – she did call me an enemy of the working class because, she claimed, I am working to maintain capitlism as it is and then published violent imagery about the working class struggle, I think (and I am not alone) aimed at me.
I really do think you have missed the point here.
i opopose violent revolution: she wants it.
Your interaction with Grace is disturbing and has made me think a lot. We (me, you, and Grace) should all be on the same side – How to create and maintain a fairer, humane and caring society.
I am working class lad, first to go to university, 1st class engineering degree which has given me a comfortable life. It has also made me numerate, logical and questioning when it comes to any complex problem. Since retiring I have become interested in why our society has become so degraded over recent decades and why the career route I took is now unavailable to so many. The evils of neoliberalism have become self-evident although i did not see it at the time. I do not want a revolution, and Grace’s philosophy scares me. I want and believe that we can significantly improve our society progressively and that requires politicians and political parties to understand how powerful they are and what they can achieve (re post WW2). MMT gives everyone an understanding of what can be achieved by governments without kowtowing to the supposed all powerful money markets. When the full realisation of how the economy really works struck me, I was gobsmacked. Knowledge is power. Your voice gives me hope and Grace’s seems rooted in a simplistic class-warfare past. Evolution not revolution.
Thanks