Another extract in this occasional series from Michael Hudson’s J is for Junk Economics (p.88-9), a book which aims “to revive a more reality-based analysis and policy-making…[by reconstructing] economics as a discipline, starting with its vocabulary and basic concepts.” This time he considers the phrase famously coined by political scientist Francis Fukuyama in the early 1990s, and how events superseded Fukuyama’s ideas, forcing a change of heart.
“End of History: A term reflecting neoliberal hopes that the West’s political evolution will stop once economies are privatized and public regulation of banking and production are dismantled. Writing in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man (1992) coined the term “liberal democracy” to describe a globalized world run by the private sector, implicitly under American hegemony after its victory in today’s clash of civilizations.
It is as if the consolidation of feudal lordship is to be restored as “the end of history,” rolling back the Enlightenment’s centuries of reform. As Margaret Thatcher said in 1985: “There is no alternative” [TINA]. To her and her neoliberal colleagues, one essayist has written “everything else is utopianism, unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because history is ruled by necessity.”
Fukuyama’s view that history will stop at this point is the opposite of the growing role of democratic government that most 20th century economists had expected to see. Evidently he himself had second thoughts when what he had celebrated as “liberal democracy” turned out to be a financial oligarchy appropriating power for themselves. In 1995, Russia’s economic planning passed into the hands of the “Seven Bankers,” with US advisors overseeing the privatization of post-Soviet land and real estate, natural resources and infrastructure. Russian “liberalism” simply meant an insider kleptocracy spree.
Seeing a similar dynamic in the United States, Fukuyama acknowledged (in a February 1, 2012 interview with Der Spiegel) that his paean to neoliberalism was premature: “Obama had a big opportunity right at the middle of the crisis. That was around the time Newsweek carried the title: ‘We Are All Socialists Now.” Obama’s team could have nationalized the banks and then sold them off piecemeal. But their whole view of what is possible and desirable is still very much shaped by the needs of these big banks.” That mode of “liberal democracy” seems unlikely to be the end of history, unless we are speaking of a permanent Dark Age in which forward momentum simply stops.”
For me, the argument is over. Big government is all-pervasive and inevitable in today’s democratic capitalism. Markets and states are or should be complements, not alternatives, in any society which is both wealthy and continuing to develop and improve the lives of its citizens in the widest possible sense.
This is not an argument for socialism, although there are some on the right who see big government as an evil leading inevitably to a totalitarian and repressive state. This remains a possibility, but it was big government that saved a system on the edge of collapse during the financial crisis, however imperfectly. Crises may be inevitable under capitalism, but it remains the job of government to improve economic and social performance by harnessing the dynamic potential of markets so as to serve the common good.
In today’s US, an unlikely president is unashamedly trying to subvert and dominate the system for his own ends. The process may seem incoherent, but perhaps it mostly boils down to serving a thirst for power and attempting to fill what some have called an ’emptiness’ at the heart of the man.
If one takes Trump’s recent State of the Union address as an accurate description of his political achievements and the state of the US, rather than analysing what he has actually done, one could be forgiven for thinking that all is well there. It is not.
This post is not an analysis of Trump’s achievements in office, rather a discussion based on three books which take a critical view of US capitalism and society, reaching beyond the current political cycle. Although each takes a slightly different perspective and more or less covers a different period in US history, the thread which links them is the idea that its economy and society are being held back by an excessive concentration of power. Continue reading →
In this recent post I outlined some of the ideas in Grace Blakeley’s new book Stolen – How to Save the World from Financialisation. Her answer to the apparent political, social and economic problems with financialisation under capitalism is a transformation towards democratic socialism, starting in the UK and spreading across the world.
In the book she describes a range of policies that would, she hopes, encourage such a trend: a Public Investment Bank; a People’s Asset Manager to encourage the spread of public ownership; an ambitious Green New Deal; changes to corporate governance so that a much wider range of stakeholders are more closely involved in decision-making, not only in non-financial corporations, but also in banks and including the Bank of England. She also argues for the restoration of trade union power and influence, the refinancing of private debt and much tougher regulation of private banking, to encourage definancialisation domestically and ultimately globally. Continue reading →
The rise of finance across the world economy in recent decades and its spectacular fall from grace as the crisis of 2008 unfolded has given birth to the notion of financialisation in academic circles, particularly among heterodox economists. Grace Blakeley, economics commentator for the New Statesman magazine, research fellow at the IPPR think tank and a rising star on the radical left here in the UK, has written an accessible book which attempts to make sense of this phenomenon and attempts to overcome it. Stolen – How to Save the World from Financialisation is aimed at the intelligent layman rather than being an academic work.
In the book, Blakeley explores the recent history of financialisation and the increasing power of finance in society and its damaging economic, social and political impact, focusing mainly on the UK. She also proposes a solution: democratic socialism. In two posts, of which this is the first, I explore some of the thinking in the book and elsewhere on financialisation and its consequences, as well as potential solutions which aim to mitigate or remove its deleterious nature. Continue reading →
Following on from yesterday’s post, here is part 2 of an interview with David Harvey with the Real News Network, where he discusses the limits of social democracy, as opposed to his views on the need for a socialist political economy.
Here is Part 3 of my series on the book Trumponomics – Causes and Consequences. As it is an early assessment of the economics of the Trump presidency, concrete left policy alternatives do not take up much of the content, but there are some ideas to draw on.
Central to the aim of making the left ‘great again’, to quote one of the authors, is a political programme which pivots away from the dominant liberal, politically correct agenda, and which serves the interests of the masses.
This would be a social democratic platform, offering a radical alternative to the neoliberal ideology which has captured both major parties in the US. Bernie Sanders, despite failing to win the Democratic nomination, gave many a taste of what could be achieved.
Sanders styled himself a ‘socialist’, but by the standards of Europe, his policy proposals were far more social democratic. He certainly was not calling for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, but merely a larger role for government in the economy. Continue reading →
The UK general election votes have been cast, and the results are nothing short of remarkable. Contrary to the early predictions of disaster for the main opposition Labour party, and for its leader Jeremy Corbyn, it was instead Theresa May’s Conservative party that suffered a heavy blow. The conservatives lost 12 seats in parliament and […]
I thought this brief discussion of the ‘mixed economy’ was appropriate after the Labour Party’s surprisingly good performance in this week’s UK General Election. They did not win, but they exceeded all expectations, running on what proved to be a popular manifesto and some good campaigning by leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Their manifesto can be seen as a traditional social democratic platform, rather than a socialist one. It was against continued austerity and cuts to public services and proposed a large increase in pubic investment in infrastructure and new technology to support the development of the private sector. Having said that, it did almost match the Conservatives’ freeze on some benefits which will hit the poorest hard over the next few years, so it wasn’t all good. Continue reading →
Economist Richard Wolff discusses in the video below Trump’s budget proposal, which aims to dramatically slash various benefits for many of the poorest Americans, cut taxes for the richest and ramp up military spending. It is unlikely to pass through Congress unaltered, and it is apparently somewhat fantastical in its economics, but it remains disgraceful.
I am not a socialist. In my view, social democracy, the mixed economy and a reformed capitalism which deliver widespread prosperity is surely an effective bulwark against revolutionary socialism. Indeed, in the early decades after World War II, this was more widely accepted in the West as part of the ‘soft’ fight against communism. If capitalism does not deliver the goods to the majority, it will lose legitimacy.
In a number of European countries, relatively strong unions which act as social partners with government and business, rather than as shock troops of the revolution, have helped to achieve both prosperity and a degree of social justice alongside individual liberty. There may sometimes be trade-offs between these goals, but they are worth shooting for together.
“The enforcement of fiscal austerity qualifies as the single most important public policy consequence of the abandonment of economics in favour of fakeconomics. Acceptance of austerity by the public in almost every major advanced country is even more perversely impressive than the austerity itself. Anyone born after 1960 must find it hard to believe that once, long ago it seems, the belief in balanced budgets did not drive public finances, nor did governments agonize over and quake in breathless anticipation of the “verdict of financial markets” on their policy decisions.
The overthrow of rigor and common sense in what we once called the economics profession did not cause this seismic shift in the ideology of public policy. We can trace the chronology of causality quite clearly, especially in Britain and the US. The cause lies in the secular decline in trade union influence and the parallel rise in the power of capital. Aneurin (“Nye”) Bevan, tireless Welsh campaigner for the rights of working people, stated the danger succinctly. Unless the working majority organizes to prevent it, “it is an axiom, enforced by the experience of the ages, that they who rule industrially will rule politically.” In the twenty-first century we can replace “industrially” with “financially.”