Registered user login:

New crisis, old solution

Peter Wilby

Published 24 January 2008

Capitalism's failure finds the left without a plan

I know many people are going to lose their jobs, their houses and possibly their pensions, but there is still something irresistibly comic about the response of western governments and banks to the crisis that now assails them.

It is not just the spectacle of new Labour reluctantly contemplating the nationalisation of Northern Rock as though it were on a moral par with selling your daughter into prostitution. Far more significant is the plight of such pillars of international capitalism as Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, UBS and Barclays. With their balance sheets devastated as a result of the ideology their executives have espoused for the past quarter-century - unregulated market capitalism - they have had to raise billions of dollars in foreign capital to bail themselves out.

But it's not just any old foreign capital. At the head of the rescue posse are the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, China Investment Corporation, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Kuwait Investment Authority. Yes, these are government bodies making investment decisions - in other words, doing precisely what the panjandrums of western capitalism have long insisted governments shouldn't do.

The alarm from Financial Times columnists is palpable. Martin Wolf, the paper's chief economics commentator, fears the destruction of "the political legitimacy of the market economy itself". John Willman, the business editor, warns that "nationalisation . . . is making a comeback" and adds that "younger FT readers may be surprised to learn" that there are precedents, notably in the prehistoric days of Clement Attlee. Jeffrey Garten, a Yale professor, detects "a transformation" comparable to the switch from feudalism to capitalism.

One is tempted to echo Michael Winner: do calm down, dear. Market liberalism has suffered a blow, but there is nothing new in banking crises leading to a revival of state regulation and ownership.

This crisis can be seen as a reverse version of the 1970s, when rising oil prices and industrial stagnation destroyed the regulated, welfarist, mildly egalitarian capitalism of the postwar era. That led to the hegemony of right-wing ideas which would infect most western centre-left parties. But in the 1970s, right-wing think tanks had a fully worked-out programme for a new world, available to Reagan and Thatcher as they came to power.

I see no comparable programme coming from the left, despite the admirable efforts of Compass. If anything, the agenda in Britain is being set by Policy Exchange and other centre-right think tanks.

However much old Labourites like me may dream, there are few signs of voter support for the revival of a traditional left agenda, largely because no major western party has stated its case for more than a decade. The latest British Social Attitudes, just published, finds only 35 per cent think the government should spend more on welfare benefits for the poor against 58 per cent in 1991. Answers to a range of questions lead Peter Taylor-Gooby and Rose Martin of Kent University to conclude that a 28 per cent majority in favour of welfarism in the early 1990s has turned into a 13 per cent majority against it now. As for regulation and nationalisation, does anybody in Whitehall still know how to go about it? Perhaps civil servants will fly to Venezuela for lessons from Hugo Chávez.

A programme that captures the public imagination over the next ten years is more likely to come from some combination of environmentalism and what can loosely be described as "the politics of happiness" - the view that we need to go beyond an ever increasing Gross Domestic Product as the criterion of a nation's success.

The running on that is coming as much from the right as the left.

Conservative greenery is not confined to David Cameron. Look, for example, at Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, a book just published in America from David Frum, former special assistant to George W Bush. "As people get richer," Frum writes, "material things come to matter less, things of the spirit matter more . . . leisure, tranquillity and beauty come into greater demand". He refers to a global "revolution in environmental consciousness" and goes on to propose carbon taxes.

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy has also decided that, in the words of the song, he should "spread a little happiness". He may be privatising the ports, but he has also commissioned some leftish economists to help him design a "quality of life" index. He has even started to quote an octogenarian guru, a former communist called Edgar Morin, who has proposed "a politics of civilisation". Perhaps Morin will play the same role in whatever political programme develops in the 2010s that Friedrich von Hayek, also an obscure octogenarian when Margaret Thatcher came to power, played in the 1980s. But a great deal of hard thinking still needs to be done.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

11 comments from readers

writeon
24 January 2008 at 14:53

Peter,

I just don't understand how anyone can believe in this myth that we have 'free markets' when the available facts indicate the opposite. Our economic system isn't really a 'market' and it certainly isn't 'free'! It is controlled, only the methods don't resemble the 'socialist central planning' characteristic of the old Soviet Union. Our system is closer to a very elaborate, though controlled, version of Las Vegas and steered by a different style of Mafia.

The Left has a problem in promoting an alternative, but this isn't surprising as it was crushed and ejected from Parliament almost to a man. The lack of an effective 'opposition', over the last thirty odd years, has had very negative results. There was no real 'break' on the worst excesses of rampant Thatcherism, and now I believe we are going to see the consequences writ large and long.

My take is that the Miner's Strike was an historic watershed for the entire left, not just the miners. Crushing the miners using the entire strength of the State, taught the entire Union Movement a terrible lesson. A lesson that virtually destroyed working-class political culture. This in turn had devastating effect on the Labour party, eventually destroying it as recognisable Social Democratic party. In the end it was so weakened it was easy prey to a Rightest coup after the death of John Smith. In effect the Unions and Labour both simply refused to defend themselves and surrendered to the Thatcher State's attack. It was like Chile but without the tanks and jets. Though I believe Thatcher was ready to use them in the event of a General Strike in support of the miners. It was always a mistake to underestimate her lust for power and willingness to destroy organized labour.

What the smashing of both the Unions and Labour meant was that the Right had free play to run Britain into the ground in the long run, and now as the wheels begin to fall off the cart, the results are clear for all to see. Whether this will lead to revival of the crushed Left is debatable, we might get an even more centralized and authoritarian form of government than we've got now.

knave
24 January 2008 at 20:24

Great article Peter but your point about the policy exchange unit also goes for Bright/Kamfnner/Cohen and the editorials of this periodical.

subprimate
25 January 2008 at 12:07

"Great article Peter but your point about the policy exchange unit also goes for Bright/Kamfnner/Cohen and the editorials of this periodical." Quite.

The problem is that Labourism is dead. What we need is a revolutionary democratic movement on par with the Latin American model. Of course, that relies on a dispossessed majority for support, as in Venezuela, whereas in Britain a new political movement would need the support or relatively comfortable working class, lower middle class and middle class Britons. But given the growing antipathy toward the super rich (helped by the Mail and Telegraph) there is a big opening for a populist force that favours redistribution, a peace based foreign policy and an ideology of solidarity. Because we have lived through a decade of the greatest prosperity ever seen, 70% are less sympathetic to the 30% welfare dependents than they were in the Tory years when mass unemployment could affect anyone.

An effective new left movement, that could get into Parliament once PR is introduced, could unite green, happiness, anti-capitalism and old Labour ideas. Historically, our political system has changed once a century. The last time was the reforms of the Liberals from 1908-1918. A new reform/revolution is overdue.

Pat T
25 January 2008 at 22:47

Hayek was no "obscure octogenarian" - he won the Nobel Prize in Economics and he authored several popular essays including perhaps the most influential libertarian book in a century.

Feel free to oppose individual liberty, its long record of success and, as you have, its champions, but don't misprepresent their stature.

BritishAirman
27 January 2008 at 10:45

The Northern Rock debacle came about because of the weaknesses inherent within a free-market. A free market approach, for instance, that allows millions of pounds in banking bonuses to be paid to bankers - before, any need to see the crystallizing effects of those decisions. It doesn't matter because the last line of resort and liability will be picked up by the Bank of England in the form of a guarantee. But, it does matter as this crisis shows. The British taxpayer doesn't have an obligation in propping up an institution through poor sub-prime management or high risks undertaken; a free and uninhibited market that created a collapse in confidence and failure, to quickly spread like wildfire.

When the Labour government came to power it had changed certain elements of the free-market by adopting elements of the social chapter. Some of the laws created through that principle, such as the minimum wage, has been effective in protecting exploitation of cheap and vulnerable labour: measures that were needed in the context of eradicating slavish and manipulative practices. In other areas though, the government has moved to far to the centre by allowing financial markets, for instance, far too much freedom. Even the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the UK has admitted lack of regulation and monitoring which has contributed significantly in the downfall of the Northern Rock Bank.

Operating free markets can create a loss of perspective; a risk taken here and there without regulation might be a risk worth taking, without calculating in economic terms what the collateral damage might be.

The government in Britain, to be fair, has attempted to balance regulation with free moving markets but the regulation where it is needed isn't anywhere near strong enough. The government here, strong advocates of liberalizing the labour markets, led to a flood of immigrants into the country absorbing low skilled jobs from the grasp of indigenous Britons, a miscalculated approach that backfired against the door of a government seeking to expand the limits of market reform. Not only within low skilled trades but within professional careers too - medicine and IT, to name just two. Liberalization to the extent promoted by the Blair agenda that has never been accepted in such liberal terms across other EU states. Free-markets and yet an unwillingness to embrace the single currency in Britain which stifles British competitiveness because large scale multinationals and conglomerates will not relocate here because of the constraints and costs associated with exchange rates, a position that could exacerbate itself in periods of financial and economic turmoil. The problem lies centrally in Britain remaining historically entrenched in ideals of short-termism which weakens long term commercial sustainability at its very core. A continued desire by the government in Britain, though, in remaining shortly focused without weighing into the economic equation longer term consequences of political decisions taken.

http://markatscotland.blogspot.com

Steppenwolf
27 January 2008 at 21:00

Congratulations to both Writeon and subprimate for breaking a few corporate capitalist taboos on the historic truth.

This is a good article with lots of good points. But I think the problem is that so much of the "left" (to the extent these terms still have any meaning) over the last 60 or 70 years has gotten so bogged down in trying to make capitalism less oppressive and its dictatorial institutions more accountable, that it has lost sight of the key fundamental goal of socialist economics: the democratization of the economy--putting business and capital under the direct democratic ownership and control of the workers in them, the consumers who pay for them and the communities they serve.

Don’t get me wrong. No serious economist or historian can argue against the fact that the huge social and democratic reforms fought for and won by labour and socialist movements throughout the 20th century helped create, for the first time in history, a situation where the majority of working people were no longer poor and destitute and living on subsistence (at this was the case in North America and Western Europe).

But what’s happened is that in doing this, the “left” seems to have retreated from the view that these reforms are mainly transitional stepping stones toward a freer sustainable cooperative, and ultimately classless, society, to the position that these reforms are the end in themselves. This has obviously put much of the “left” in a basically defensive and reactionary position lacking both the vision and innovation against the corporate capitalist/fascist assault to turn the clock back.

That’s why, over the last 25 years of corporatist capitalist brutality and undoing of these hard-won reforms, and the loss of freedoms and living standards associated with them, the “left” has been largely unable to mount an effective strategy to get people to organize against it.

The article, however, is incorrect in saying that Labour Party activists should go to Venezuela to learn about nationalization of corporations. The fact is the Bolivarian government, like most of the recently freely elected center-left coalitions in South America, has rejected state capitalism (especially the Bolshevik/Maoist variety) in favour of economic democracy: worker co-ops and employee ownership, labour-sponsored ventures, community-based enterprise, etc., which are the actual basis for socialist/communist economics.

That’s what makes those movements so much more dynamic and innovative, as well as visionary and inspiring—able to defy and overcome the corporate media hate propaganda, the US-backed military coups, etc.

When these fact-based successes go up against the idiotic meaningless rhetoric of the corporate right-wing pushing brutal austerity and totalitarianism, typical of any form of macro-capitalism, hiding behind fraudulent buzzwords like “individual liberty,” "free market" and “libertarian,” much like the Stalinists push their twisted state capitalism behind meaningless terms like “democratic centralism” and “building socialism,” you can see why these democratic socialist movements are thriving.

writeon
28 January 2008 at 17:05

Steppenwolf,

I agree with most of your analysis. In the circles I used to move in, we had a slogan, "There is no Left or Right - only rich and poor!" Ah, those were the days, when Old Labour dinosaurs walked the earth, before the flood! My chums were a mixed bunch of, aristocratic champagne anarchists, and militant, direct action orientated radical socialists. Our ideal society existed for approximately three days in Paris in 1968, three months during the Russian Revolution, and three years in Spain until we were stabbed in the back by Stalin and in the heart by Franco! How I miss the romance of youth.

We regarded the Labour Party as being way too moderate, trusting and reform orientated. They were, after all dreaded Social Democrats who believed in gradualism and convincing the Capitalist ruling class to voluntarily give up their wealth and power, ha!

What's odd for me, from exile, is to see how far to the Right, New Labour has moved. It's so obvious to me and the old men I've chatted to in pubs, cafes, all over Britain, who've I met on my travels. But the Labour Pary always had an influential right-wing, only they never controlled the entire Party like they do now. Labour and New Labour could almost be two entirely different parties, and in reality they are. One just wants Power, the other wanted Power for a purpose, to change society, slowly but in the right direction.

It's illustrative to compare Tony Benn's language and politics with those of his son Hillary. They are strikingly different. Then we have the Milliband brothers. I seem to remember their dad, Ralph, was a Socialist intellectual, what happened? Are the apparent differences important? Are they real? Is it all just a question of style and rhetoric? Is it a game they are playing? Is it a clever tactic? Is it a conspiracy? Are we to believe and hope that one day they'll throw off the shackles, and they'll suddenly surprise everyone and emerge as socialists, bent on change and reform, determined to break the destructive stranglehold of class that's still holding society back.

Now, decades later, I actually miss some of the old skool Labour Party dinosaurs; they weren't that bad, at least not compared to the current bunch of intensely ambitious, careerist, technocrats; servants of the corporate Capitalist state, that have turned the Labour Party into something else. An efficient, election winning machine, but still a machine, a machine without a heart or a soul. A machine without a real direction, without vision, and without a brain.

Carl Jones
29 January 2008 at 21:53

Peter and others, it is good to see this debate. Free markets are taking a knock and I agree they don`t really exist. Last August I saw an article in The Telegraph about the PPT (Plunge Protection Team). The PPT is an illegal cabal of investments banks who intervean in the markets when they see fit....is NWO finance (insider dealing) at its finest.

I like the comparison between the two Benn`s. We must remember that Tony Benn was instrumental in wasting North Sea oil revenue. I don`t believe Hilary is much better, but these are puppet politicians, like Darling and Brown. Their daring rescue of Northern Rock is an illustration of their lack of power. You would think senior investment bank executives would be worrying about their shirts, but as the last CEO of Citigroup can testify...he walked away very rich...they all do!

I don`t believe we have a system of capitalism as its classically understood. The Earth`s population is esentially flat with some very high spikes. Ordinary people in the West aren`t much better off than people in the second and third world economies. Millions are losing their homes in the US. In order to make limited health spending go further, huge sections of the British publc are being denied healthcare on technicalities...they drink, they smoke, or they weight to much. I suppose in the next 10-20 years this policy will have advanced to gene defects, parents will be aborting babies because the state won`t cover the cost and they can`t afford it. The reason why our Bilderberg government can afford to mistreat its citizens so badly, is immigration....already 100,000 Brits have been displaced from work by immigrants. Britain is the least productive developed nation, If we were as productive as France, then you could argue a case for immigration, yet, what has happened, is that the average Brit has dropped in value within the globalization model, in fact, its happening all over the West. This is going to get much worse.

The current economic collapse has been designed by the NWO, its purpose is to engineer a restructuring of the economic landscape. Quite what they have in mind, I`m not sure. But I would suggest that corporations will start off shoring more middle managemant jobs. This will shake middle England to its core, but heck, the downturn will be so bad they`ll be busy sucking upto their bosses.

The system we live in is communism with minor incentives...incentives which you can lose at the drop of a hat. However, the high peaks will remain high, very high...its Stalin`s Russia with glitter and jusy as much blood (Iraq).

antileft
17 February 2008 at 10:33

"The problem is that Labourism is dead. What we need is a revolutionary democratic movement on par with the Latin American model."

Man, some of you people really are stupid. Time to learn how the economy works, I think.

What youre looking for will never happen. Why? Because it's a bad idea. Communism doesnt work. Get over it.

gnuneo
05 March 2008 at 14:48

one of the main problems with 'old skool labour', was that it was simply wrong on too many counts.

instead of championing capitalist partnerships (cooperatives), it championed State control.

who the hell trusts politicians?

instead of then recognising that free markets are good when placed in the context of a partnership economy (but not in feudal capitalism), they argued in favour of... State control!

and again, who the hell...

people WANT freedom and liberty, the Left utterly shot itself in the foot with this one.

the mistake was in being led around by Karl %^*&ing Marx, whose ideas were clearly high-modernist inspired top-down autocracies, that could only lead to totalitarian dictatorships because the People would utterly reject them!

instead of taking the valuable elements of hayek/friedman etc, which can largely be sourced back to adam smith's realisation that a free, liberal and democratic society/economy will tend to grow much faster (because empowered people work harder, in their own enlightened self-interest), and tracing back the fault lines in their arguments back to the fact we DON'T have a partnership economy but a feudal one, they threw out the baby with the bath water and argued against individual liberty in favour of...yes, State control!

THIS was the grave failing of the 'old skool' Left, and they left the door wide open for the cunning Right to steal the language of liberty, and apply it to the hang-over feudal economy, with the end result that the People were offered a choice between a feudal society, where one at least could 'improve' ones condition, or one ruled with an iron fist by the State, with the horrific examples of China and Russia as models of what they would entail!

so i have as little sympathy for those Left Dinosaurs, as i do with the Right Fascists, and both have sold out the People completely.

as for a plan for the future... there are roughly 3 options.

1. continue as is, watch as more of our economy is swallowed by the trans-nats, and when the crises caused by GW, oil depletion, debt meltdown, or an attack upon Iran hits full time, we can expect to the GBLtd being announced bankrupt a la argentina, and all our assets (whatever we have left) handed over to the corporate world, and the happy days of liberal feudalism, zero social infrastructure etc, in fact the whole panoplia of Imperial Colonialism imposed upon the British Peoples. (some might say there would be some justice there. Perhaps, but F^%& you too.).

2. when the crises hit (see above), the State nationalises everything, and we end up with the marxist-maoist totalitarian dictatorship of the national Elite (instead of the trans-nat Elite of example 1), with massive surveillance, and control of every aspect of our lives in a bleak Orwellian vision.

3. we move already to a capitalist partnership economy, industry by industry, which will give us a cushion when the now inevitable global depression hits, people are trained in proper democracy at school (by having a direct say in their own education and how the school is managed), then are ready to enter into a democratic workplace, where they will own an equal share, along with owning their own homes (or again in a cooperative), we secure local energy creation, and we become a beacon for the rest of the world to emulate.

where is the fly in ointment 3?

well, apparently people can't grasp the notion they could own part of their workplaces, although they can apparently grasp owning anything else, such as their homes.

you'll excuse me if i find that a ludicrous argument.

with an education campaign with only 10% of the intensity of how the GW2 was sold, the British public would quickly and easily grasp the concepts involved, and the stakes, and for an infinitely more noble purpose than invading one of the already most destroyed nations on Earth.

This is about Democracy, Empowerment, Individualism, Liberty, Classical Liberalism, and about a hope for the future of our children.

this is about doing the right thing.

james
14 July 2008 at 04:40

There are idea's from the left but for 15 years ordinary Labour members have not had a choice in their leader. We all wanted Blair to go, because he sold out. GB started off well more middle of the road but has become more right wing than the Tories. The next Welfare reform Bill will prove that. Who's undermined welfare, Means testing for almost everything so the Middle class wont pay for something they will never get. Shame on you GB plus your cowardly MP's allowing our rights to be signed away with right wing rubbish to justify the idefensible.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Peter Wilby

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes a weekly column for the NS.

Also by Peter Wilby

Read More

Vote!

Should the international community intervene in Gaza?