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.
David Harvey is a distinguished professor of Anthropology and Geography at the City University of New York Graduate School. He has written extensively on aspects of Marxist political economy, including a number of popular books and guides to Marx’s Capital.
In the first part of this interview with the Real News Network he discusses the persistence of neoliberalism despite its manifold failures.
Costas Lapavitsas is a Professor of Economics at SOAS in London and a long-standing critic of the EU. His recent book, The Left Case Against the EU, is an interesting and provocative read, whatever your political orientation.
In this short interview, he argues for a No Deal Brexit from a left perspective, as well as political and economic transformation in countries across Europe that benefits ordinary working people via public ownership of the banks and utilities, industrial policy and redistribution, alongside increased popular and national sovereignty and democratic accountability. Continue reading →
John Maynard Keynes did not wish to merely save capitalism ‘from itself’ but to replace it with ‘Liberal Socialism’. That is the controversial claim made in a new book by the distinguished radical economist James Crotty, whose work ‘attempts to integrate the complementary analytical strengths of the Marxian and Keynesian traditions’.
The book, Keynes Against Capitalism, subtitled His Economic Case for Liberal Socialism, draws heavily on textual evidence found in the collected works of Keynes himself, from the 1920s through to the end of his life in 1946. This is both its strength and its weakness.
Without wishing to get into debate over semantics, one could find oneself agreeing with much of the argument ie that Keynes did in fact wish to replace capitalism with a radically different system called Liberal Socialism, but to say, in some ways, so what? The book is a fine scholarly read, but I found myself questioning whether Keynes’ (Crotty’s?) Liberal Socialism, for all its admirable socially transformative aims, would be both feasible and sustainable. Continue reading →
A short video below featuring Marxist economist Richard Wolff on what he sees as the difference between capitalism and socialism. Wolff is always thought-provoking and good to listen to, even if one doesn’t agree with everything he says.
For me, it is helpful to see capitalism around the world as coming in many varieties, each with strengths and weaknesses, and as an evolving system, rather than as a pure type. Capitalism hasn’t always existed, and it may transform into something else given time. This would not necessarily be socialism. This line of thinking draws on (old) institutional economics.
Having said that, the essentials of the employment relationship, extensive market exchange, production by firms for profit, private ownership and a legal system which supports individual property rights seem to me to be important in a definition of capitalism. For an in-depth discussion of these issues I can recommend Geoffrey Hodgson’s recent book Conceptualizing Capitalism.