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!
As this long thread of comments has progressed I have detected some evidence of “tarring with the same brush” and a degree of stereotyping of “Marxists”. There is undoubtedly a dogmatic “wing” in the Marxist school of thought but it is not characteristic of all folk who think of themselves as Marxists. There is plenty of evidence in the (now over 200) comment on Grace Blakely’s substack post that people of a Marxist persuasion understand MMT and how it is powerful tool for the development of a program of economic and social transformation. I suspect Marx himself would reject dogmatic adherence to theory which has not adapted to change and new knowledge and understanding. As I commented elsewhere, another form of MMT is needed – Modern Marxist Theory. Marxism needs to evolve and there is no reason to think that it hasn’t or that it is incapable of it. There are always those who are inclined to dogmatism – its a mistake to tar everyone else with the same brush
My comments are only about Grace Blakeley, not all Marxists. I am, unsurprisingly, aware of the variety of Marxists thought. She, and I suspect Meadway, subscribe to a form that I think is toxic. I know not all is, of course. The generalisation is not of my creation.
Hi Richard, I appreciate your objection is to what Grace B said (not marxists as such) and that being accused of being an enemy was threatening. That was a bizarre and unwelcome thing for her to say–not how most marxists would choose to see things I suspect, and the implication of threat is utterly malign. (On the other hand, it’s not so nice to be told I’m speaking nonsense when I’m engaging with you in good faith and with a fair amount of knowledge on the topic. Maybe what I wrote was simply boring or annoying to you. Let’s set that aside.)
I posted yesterday some further defense of marxism, but the comment didn’t go through. No need for it now. However, I will say that marxists have often disagreed *profoundly* about the role of violence, or the inevitability or desirability of that coming from the side of the mass of working people. Rosa Luxemburg (for instance) was very good on the authoritarian dangers of revolutionary violence; and she was very clear that a revolution or socialist transition that gets rid of democracy destroys itself and the lives of the people it (ostensibly) aims to liberate. Democracy is not (for her) assumed to be absent—it is desired, built on, and desired to be extended and enhanced.
In any case, nowadays, far far more common than advocates of violence within marxism are various *ultra*-democratic, pluralist approaches to thinking about possible pathways to largescale social change involving mass democracy. As others have said here, there are also many MMT-marxists.
Beyond the threats (intended or not), and besides some probable rhetorical oversteer from Grace B, there are perhaps still substantive things to disagree on here, and I respect that. But marxism is not monolithic or reducible to its worst historical manifestations. It’s a complex tradition with its own nuances and valuable insights—whether or not you think that nuance and insight is evident in the way individual marxists speak and act.
One other thing: you said “For once, I agree with Bill”. What’s the bulk of the disagreement between you and Bill Mitchell?
I deleted because I think this issue has beem worked to death now as far as readers here are concerned.
And what’s up with Bill. And why won’t Stephanie Kelton talk to him either? Because he is offensively rude and mostly promotes absurd politikcs I want nothing to do with.
Tom you go on about state violence being inflicted by right-wing capitalists but omit telling us Marxists murdered a great many people in the Tiananmen Square Massacre and surrounding areas!
Your Chinaphobia obviously prevents you from seeing the positive lessons that can be learned from their state directed mixed economy model. Of course the one party political system and human rights record leave a lot to be desired but none of that discredits their economic system
Understood–thanks for the response!
Interestingly Jim Osborne you attack me with an ad hominem about my “China phobia.”
If you’d made an effort to read up on Chinese history in 1989 you’d know that Deng Xiaoping (who wanted to introduce market capitalism into China as fast as possible) tried to save his own skin when this policy created very high inflation and public protests. Conservative hard-liners observing what was happening in Poland with the Solidarity at that time were fearful about losing their positions too and pushed Deng Xiaoping into imposing martial law with substantial loss of life (Known to the West as The Tiananmen Square Massacre).
All this information can be found in Chapter 10 (At the Delta) of Julian Gewirtz’s book “Unlikely Partners.” Zhao Ziyang who was tasked by Deng Xiaoping with introducing market capitalism into China as fast as possible was put under house arrest for the rest of his life (See his book “Prisoner of the State”). The principal reason the conservative hard liners used to justify this house arrest was that Zhao Ziyang “had read few of Marx’s and Lenin’s works”! No doubt your next ad hominem attack on me will be the same!
I feel like Grace is downplaying what a basic understanding of MMT can do to and for the population and why it’s important to change this narrative away from the balance the books narrative that is a lie. The latter narrative is a core reason for people voting for austerity, why they vote for policies that are harmful to those needing welfare and why society is tearing itself apart in some ways.
Governments with their own currency can spend as much as they want as they print the money they spend.
Tax controls the inflation that results from printing money and does not stop a government spending money on what we need.
These 2 simple points change the narrative from we don’t have enough money to we have the money and it’s the politician’s fault. That last part is what Grace seems to be arguing, that we need to change the way politician’s and the politics of this country work. She is also right that MMT alone isn’t a panacea for all our woes and requires a systematic change in our society, something you yourself have said as well Richard.
To me it feels like you both agree on vastly more than you disagree on and it’s a tragedy to see 2 prominent voices at each other like this publicly and destructively so. Arguing on semantics in this way isn’t helping the 4.3M children living in relative poverty and they really don’t care about it, neither do their parents, they just want things to get better. I hope you both can resolve your differences, privately, and then come together to enact change or at least be less hostile to each other.
Ask her why I am an enemy in class war then.
Well you’re an enemy of the people Richard because like Deng Xiaoping in China Grace Blakeley has decided you haven’t read enough Marx and Lenin writings! This was the excuse that Deng Xiaoping agreed with high level conservative politicians in government to put Zhao Ziyang under house arrest. Deng Xiaoping had tasked Zhao Ziying with implementing market capitalism in China as soon as possible. Part of this implementation in Deng Xiaoping’s view meant rapidly lifting state price controls on basic commodities that had been in place for decades. This created very high inflation resulting in public protest in 1989 which happened to coincide with public protest in Poland led by Solidarity and unrest in Hungary all with the aim of creating a more democratic country.
Zhao Ziying took the view that the party ought to have a dialogue with the people involved in the Chinese protest to explain what the government was trying to do by introducing market capitalism into the country especially the importance of lifting price controls. The conservative leaders in the party interpreted having such dialogue as trying to introduce Western democracy into the country. Of course this was anathema Western democrats knew hardly anything about the writings of Marx and Lenin! The only recourse therefore was to declare martial law to quell the protest. This resulted in the Tiananmen Square Massacre and army killings in other areas in addition to widespread repression of dissent by other means.
Ironically, when all had quietened down Deng Xiaoping reverted to saying ” Socialism also involves a market economy, just as capitalism does not do away with government planning. Adopting some market principles is not equivalent to embracing capitalism” (Page 240 in the book “Unlikely Partners”). Of course what he didn’t say was he’d learnt the lesson that implementing “market principles” in a fair and stable way required feedback from democracy. For Grace Blakeley to pretend that MMT isn’t a very important component part of that feedback is to put it bluntly not very smart!