Jack Straw’s criticism of Michael
Hudson and Webster Tarpley
This is not the British Labour Party’s Jack Straw, but the
communist economist. In the article given in the link below Jack Straw criticises
Michael Hudson and Webster Tarpley for believing that the great US middle class
can be rebuilt, even though the world’s resources are fast running out. I think he
get’s Michael Hudson wrong and below I explain why.
Well, it turns out that Webster Griffin Tarpley is his real
name, and yep, that's some name for sure, but he has sent me all the
around-the-houses for the last few days.
I found this really good article by him about what is happening in the
Middle East today which I almost posted here, but a little while afterwards I found
out some more stuff about Tarpley which I wasn't all that keen on.
I first came across Webster Tarpley a few years back and I
thought, wow, he's a good leftist! Then I came across him again on the Alex
Jones Show sniggering and sneering about the British Queen, things I do totally
agree with, but they were both so infantile and childish that it put me
off them. I then thought, damn, I've been caught out again because Tarpley is really
a right wing libertarian. I often get caught out on right wing blogs where I
think they are left – i.e., anti war, anti banker, anti the elite, you know
what I mean, and then I find out how right wing they really are, and sometimes that they are
even white supremacist?
A few months later I found out that Tarpley really was
a socialist after all and I thought, terrific, because he can be so good, but then with all his mad conspiracy theories and climate change denial it just put me right
off him again.
Michael Hudson couldn’t be more different, he is considerate,
thoughtful, and much more relaxed. Anyhow, I
was never sure how ‘industrial capitalism’, as Michael calls it, was going to
be less exploitative than financial capitalism, but I gave Michael Hudson the
benefit of the doubt. And I could understand where Micheal was coming from;
a meritocracy is so much better than feudalism, which was a state of the self
perpetuating rich. I think Hudson is a genuine leftist,
and not an out an out meritocracist, but he knows that a real meritocracy
would really break the ruling class's oligarchy and so that is the place to
start. After this has been achieved, Michael believes that the mixed economy and
the welfare state would then develop, along with the three day week, where the
benefits of industrial capitalism would finally be spread out.
But to counter this social democratic movement - which would
mean the loss of over class's privileged lifestyle, the elite then used the ‘meritocracy’ as a way to pretend that they
also stand for a ‘people’s type of capitalism’, where everyone rightly gets
what they deserve. This sounds fine except you must ask what does this position
hold for them, why do they like it? Well, because then they can then say that
there should be no welfare state, or any benefits, or minimum wage, or any
public services, or social provision, and that everything should be privatized.
Now mix that with a load of propaganda that they constantly pump out about in the media that they own about how lazy the underclass
are, and then you can see the system that they have duped the public with.
Some MMTer's believe that the US can be revamped,
re-industrialized, and its infrastructure rebuilt to create a modern, social
democracy with a large middle class. Personally, I think Jack Straw’s
criticism of Michael Hudson is a bit harsh, where he questions his style of socialism
and criticizes his theories. Michael Hudson would like to see the three day working day
week with robots and automation doing more of the work (just think of 3D
printing) with people working less and having more leisure time.
2 comments:
Michael Hudson is not a Marxist. So it goes without saying that his prescriptions would run along the line of reforming and preserving capitalism. He wouldn't be the first person to misconstrue Marx's work.
I would say that MH is a Marxian, but not exclusively. Quite a few economists fall into that category, which is rather broad.
Post a Comment