David Harvey on the limits to social democracy

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.

Advertisements

David Harvey on the persistence of neoliberalism

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.

‘The left must fight for a real Brexit’ – an interview with Costas Lapavitsas

lapavitsasCostas 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

Keynes against capitalism

Crotty Keynes Against CapitalismJohn 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

What are capitalism and socialism? Richard Wolff on the difference

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.

Our resurgent enemy: authoritarian nationalism trumps neoliberalism

Institutionalist economist Geoffrey Hodgson writes a fascinating and highly informative blog entitled New Politics. This post from January discusses the authoritarian nationalist turn in world politics and the vital importance of liberalism in countering this threat. His writing is lucid, compelling, and very well-informed by lessons from history.

Although the post is more about politics than economics, from a political economy perspective, the two are more useful when analysed together. In modern capitalist economies, the role of the state is inseparable from other institutions such as the rule of law and the market.

The debate over economic policy should be thoroughly exercised in the public realm of a healthy democracy. This requires well-educated citizens open to engaging critically in such a debate, allowing space for diversity and pluralism without dictating their terms. Intolerance is present in elements of both left and right and is contrary to the liberal perspective. Continue reading

Geoff Hodgson on capitalism and democracy

9780226419695A quote from my current reading on the nature of capitalism which I found particularly inspiring. Hodgson argues that many thinkers have neglected the institutional diversity of capitalism in their push to promote ‘pure’ versions of either market individualism or socialism:

“As long as we are trapped in the Tweedledum-and-Tweedledee debate between planning and markets, we shall be unable to appreciate the intermediating networks and institutions that have played a vital role in the development of modern capitalism. Experience reveals the limitations of both wholesale socialism and atomized individualism. Along with individual property rights, all successful capitalisms have embraced corporate organization and other intermediate layers of organized power as well as varying measures of state intervention. These are important for both its emergence and its vitality.

But while intermediate organization is necessary, it is not sufficient. It guarantees neither dynamism, democracy, nor legality. The experience of fascism in the twentieth century shows that big business can connive with autocracy against democracy and liberty. As US President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.” Excessive corporate or military power can also undermine or constrain democracy. Countervailing power has to balance rather than overwhelm other legitimate authority. The maintenance of politicoeconomic systems with their counterbalanced powers requires constant vigilance.”

Geoffrey M. Hodgson (2015), Conceptualizing Capitalism