Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Marcus Breen on Lenin was a neoliberal – and other jokes
- colorado aspen labs on The Broken Language of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’
- Doublethink: Remain means Brexit – Brexit means Remain – New Politics on Blindly following “the will of the people” is lazy and unprincipled
- Socialism and communism are virtually synonymous – New Politics on The mysterious socialism of Bernie Sanders
- The myth of classical liberalism – New Politics on Mythical Markets and Neoliberalism
Archives
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
Categories
- Assimilation
- Bernie Sanders
- Bertrand Russell
- Brexit
- Caroline Lucas
- Christianity
- Common ownership
- Democracy
- Donald Trump
- E P Thompson
- George Bernard Shaw
- George Monbiot
- Green Party
- Immigration
- Islam
- Jeremy Corbyn
- Joan Robinson
- Judaism
- Karl Marx
- Khmer Rouge
- Labour Party
- Left politics
- Lenin
- Leszek Kolakowski
- Liberalism
- Ludwig von Mises
- Mao Zedong
- Markets
- Marxism
- Michael Polanyi
- Naomi Klein
- Nationalization
- Neoliberalism
- Noam Chomsky
- Philip Mirowski
- Politics
- Populism
- Private enterprise
- Property
- Religion
- Right politics
- Robert Owen
- Socialism
- Soviet Union
- Tony Benn
- Tony Blair
- Tony Blair
- Uncategorized
- Venezuela
Well… I guess as a firm believer in the Third Way… I shall follow this blog … Thanks for such enlightening article.
I have always found ironic that historical materialists, concerned as they are with interrogating history for hidden dynamics, fail so consistently to turn their dialectic gaze over the many real-world experiments, and on the grandest of scales, of implemented socialism. Where there is a consistent pattern science tells us therein lies a consistent cause, a number of which been nicely elaborated above.
I guess when the science becomes bitter perhaps moral heights are all one has left, even when they are undeserved they are easier to preserve. On that ground, I’m glad the blogpost highlighted an ill-conceived view of markets, the notion of fundamental and unremitting cutthroat competition. It seems to be generally ignored that in order to compete at all each business must build enormous networks of cooperation within the firm (employees, management) between firms (suppliers, customers) and a whole host of other stakeholders. This involves institutionalised cooperation on the grandest of scales, i.e. humans interacting in non-violent, mutually beneficial ways using shared norms. One such norm is trust, as Fukuyama (1995) outlined not long after predicting the End of History. In the historical scheme of things not a bad outcome one might reasonable argue…even at risk of being labelled a neo-something rather!
Of course these people are not demanding a central planning economy. They just want more government intervention in favor of workers, A Social State, welfare programs, good public services…
All this is a common sense definition of Socialism in some countries…
Marx recognized other types of socialism (though he disagreed with them). In the nineteenth century, all those who defended pro-labor reforms were considered socialist.
The question is: What is happening in the economies of these countries so that people are more interested in ‘Socialism’?
Socialism has traditionally been defined as 100% common ownership. This wording was on the UK Labour Party membership card until 1995 and many want this formulation brought back. Attempts to change this traditional definition have often failed.
It is untrue that “in the nineteenth century, all those who defended pro-labor reforms were considered socialist.” Many pro-labor reforms (such as the reductions in child labor and in the length of the working day) were supported by Tories. The Liberal Party was also involved in reforms. In the UK the welfare state was founded by Liberals in 1906.
I agree with the pertinence of your final question. Many people are reacting against misguided austerity policies.
“Socialism has traditionally been defined as 100% common ownership”, ok, right.
But there is/was a definition of term linked to social reformism (not revolutionary), no?
I think the same type of confusions happens with “Liberalism”. Many times it its used as synonimous of laissez-faire, free market, small government… but many liberals do not agree with this
“Many people are reacting against misguided austerity policies.” Yes! Austerity is the current adversary of the people
Look this poll https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2-2/
Just discovered your blog. Didn’t know you had one. Great to have great thinkers take the time in this way. Wish more would do so. On the article, I think this is the right perspective and with it, the argument would be that neoliberalism is effectively a form of State capture by business. My take is that business has been a great mechanism of wealth creation but the State needs to step in to restrain the excesses. The perpetual question is what is the right amount of constraint that balances interests and “keeps the peace.” The other bit which is too often overlooked and we are not set up for is how we judge the actual performance of the State in its use of resources. The public sector is largely not equipped nor is there enough oversight of the investment decisions it undertakes. It is easy to call for an active State but it needs to be accompanied by a significant upgrade in both capabilities and transparency.