Bill Mitchell — Be careful not to get ahead of ourselves – hard-edged class struggle will be necessary

It is Wednesday and just a collection of snippets today. I am trying to finish a major piece of work and so that is what I am mostly doing today. And learning to program Geojson formats in R, so I can overcome the decision by Google to abandon their fusion table facility, which my research centre has relied on for some years to display map layers. And I have some press interviews to deal with. But today we consider the claim by the Financial Times editorial the other day that “Radical reforms are required to forge a society that will work for all”. It was an extraordinary statement from an institution like the FT to make for a start. But it reflects the desperation that is abroad right now – across all our nations – as the virus/lockdown story continues to worsen and the uncertainty grows. But I also think we should be careful not to adopt the view that everything is going to change as a result of this crisis. The elites are a plucky bunch, not the least because they have money and can buy military capacity. Changing the essential nature of neoliberalism, even if what has been displayed by all the state intervention in the last few months exposes all the myths that have been used to hide that essential nature, is harder than we might imagine. I think hard-edged class struggle is needed rather than middle-class talkfests that outline the latest gee-whiz reform proposals. The latter has been the story of the Europhile progressives for two decades or so as the Eurozone mess has unfolded. It hasn’t got them very far....

Bill goes there.

Many progressives erroneously think that now is the time for neoliberalism to collapse and social democracy to rise from it ashes. The really is that genuine and lasting reform cannot come from tweaking the existing system. The problem is with the design of the system based on key assumptions of economic liberalism ("capitalism") that are incompatible with social and political liberalism (democracy as governance of, by, and for the people, which is inherently "socialistic"). 

Here I define "capitalism" to mean a system that favors capital accumulation because "growth," and "socialism" as a system that favors welfare over growth. The elite and their cronies and minions favor the former, of course, and they aren't going to accept an overhaul of the system that favors their individual and class interests. And the way the system operates, they hold the reins of power. This is not only a national issue but also one that impacts the existing world order in terms of who makes the rules and how.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Be careful not to get ahead of ourselves – hard-edged class struggle will be necessary

Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

See also

Modern capitalism societies are built on a dichotomy: in the political space decisions are (to be) made on an equal basis with everybody having the same say and with the structure of power being flat; in the economic space the power is held by the owners of capital, the decisions are dictatorial, and the structure of power is hierarchical. The dichotomy was always a complex balancing act: at times, the political principles of nominal equality tended to intrude into the economic space and to limit the power of owners: trade unions, ability to sue companies, regulations regarding discrimination, hiring and firing. At other times, it was the economic sphere that invaded the political: the wealthy were able to buy politicians and impose the laws they liked.

The entire history of capitalism can be readily understood as the struggle between these two principles: is the democratic principle “exported” from politics to rule in economics too, or is the hierarchical principle of company organization to invade the political sphere. Social democracy was essentially the former; neoliberalism was the latter.

Global Inequality
Trump as the ultimate triumph of neoliberalism
Branko Milanovic | Visiting Presidential Professor at City University of New York Graduate Center and senior scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-economic Inequality, senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), and formerly lead economist in the World Bank's research department and senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

also

US motto: "My way or you will be destroyed." ROW: "Nuts to you." Collision course.

Tax Research UK
Trump’s world view has to be consigned to history: we need a new world order
Richard Murphy | Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London; Director of Tax Research UK; non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics, and a member of the Progressive Economy Forum

Dev Nathan — Imperialism in the 21st Century — Global Value Chains and International Labour Arbitrage

MR Online

Imperialism in the 21st Century — Global Value Chains and International Labour Arbitrage

Dev Nathan

Originally published: Economic & Political Weekly (Vol. 53, Issue No. 32, August 11, 2018)

Andreas Dombret — A stairway to heaven? The promises and limits of global integration

The speech is not short but it is important considering this is the Bundesbank.

The conclusion at least is a must read.

7. Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen

I was born in the United States, grew up in Germany, and spent much of my life working around the world, including London. Personally, the backlash against the integration of our global community has shattered my core beliefs and worries me deeply.

But I accept that global economic integration has gone too far. Theoretically, it may be appealing to have one global market, but the reality is that it does not work. It has substantial negative repercussions - repercussions that our current approach to globalisation cannot handle well.

We need to find a new, third way; a middle way that harnesses globalisation's benefits and limits its negative repercussions. To stop a race to the bottom, national governments and parliaments will have to be more willing to go their own way rather than believing in entirely free, frictionless global markets and fully harmonised rules.

They will have to decide what level of compensation they want to provide to those who lose out from globalisation; and each society will have to reconsider where it makes sense to impose limits on global markets and internationally active firms.

However, there would still be substantial room for the harmonisation of rules, but it should be less, and focused, harmonisation with minimum standards only in carefully selected, meaningful areas. I personally will do everything I can to contribute to finding the right approach.

Ten years from now, I hope we will have adapted the multilateral system to form one that does not condemn distinct national rules as something illegitimate or inefficient, but one that combines sensible global integration with institutional diversity. Only if we become that open-minded and accept the rich diversity of human culture will we be able to sustain a close multilateral system that is geopolitically stable and enjoys the support of the clear majority of people.

We need to debate this earnestly and intensely so that we may arrive at new thoughts and ideas. On that note, I now look forward to debating with you. Thank you very much for your attention.

BIS

Andreas Dombret: A stairway to heaven? The promises and limits of global integration

Speech by Dr Andreas Dombret, Member of the Executive Board of the Deutsche Bundesbank, at the London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 8 February 2018

Reuters — Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001

The United States mistakenly supported China’s membership of the World Trade Organization in 2001 on terms that have failed to force Beijing to open its economy, the Trump administration said on Friday as it prepares to clamp down on Chinese trade.

“It seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-orientated trade regime,” the administration said in an annual report to Congress on China’s compliance with WTO commitments.

“It is now clear that the WTO rules are not sufficient to constrain China’s market-distorting behavior,” the report said.... 

The report also points at Russia’s behavior, saying Moscow had no intention of complying with its WTO obligations, a trend the administration said was “very troubling.”

Getting ready to ramp up economic warfare.

Reuters
Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001

Lesley Wroughton

See also

The Communist party believes that, "Russia has obtained no preferences, benefits or even stimuli for economic development" as a result of its WTO membership.

TASS
Communist party again prepares bill on Russia's exit from WTO

Andrei Volodin — Italy – Russia: Peace Geopolitics in Eurasia

Multipolar globalization is underway despite the US. Multipolar liberal globalization versus unipolar neoliberal globalization is now on the table and it will be a major issue in the coming year. The big question is which way European powers will tilt.

Strategic Cultural Foundation
Italy – Russia: Peace Geopolitics in Eurasia
Andrei Volodin