freetrade   736

« earlier    

Left is the New Right, or Why Marx Matters -
“The American obsession with electoral politics is odd in that ‘the people’ have so little say in electoral outcomes and that the outcomes only dance around the edges of most people’s lives. It isn’t so much that the actions of elected leaders are inconsequential as that other factors— economic, historical, structural and institutional, do more to determine ‘politics.’ To use an agrarian metaphor, it’s as if the miller was put forward as determining the harvest.

The American left has had an outsider role in this politics from the inception of the nation as a capitalist oligarchy to the improbable cobbling together of the idea that popular democracy can exist alongside concentrated wealth. If the powers that be wanted popular democracy, they could stop impeding its creation. The ‘first mover’ advantage, that once gained, power is used to close the door behind it, has be understood for centuries in the realms of commerce and politics.

As was probably the intent, the 2016 presidential outcome was used by the more persistent powers to divide the American left. The neoliberal left moved to a reflexive nationalism tied through class interests to state-corporatism in defense of the realm. Carnival barker Trump, an American political archetype for at least two centuries, was portrayed as a traitor to capitalist democracy— from the left. Emptied of analytical content, left affiliation was made a ‘brand.’

In more constructive terms, Bernie Sanders reached into red state territory to facilitate a class-based left political response to the failures of capitalism by promoting social welfare programs with historical precedent in the New Deal. Tied to an analytically sophisticated effort to shift power down and across political and economic hierarchies, something akin to popular democracy is in the process of confronting its long-mythologized ghost.


Graph: It is hardly incidental that as wealth has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, its power to affect political outcomes has been codified through official determinations like Citizens United. While the domination of politics by concentrated wealth may seem new, it ties to the conception of the U.S. as a capitalist oligarchy where rich, white, slavers determined political outcomes. The Senate, the U.S. ‘House of Lords,’ wasn’t popularly elected until the twentieth century. Source:

Part of the challenge of addressing this politics comes through dubious parsing of ‘the political’ from its objects. If an agent of the government tells people when to wake, what to wear, what they can and can’t say and what to spend their time doing, that is authoritarian. When an employer determines these, it is considered ‘free choice.’ In the neoliberal frame, economics is only political to the extent that elected leaders promote specific economic policies.

Even with the realization of late that money determines political outcomes, the distribution of income and wealth is considered economics while the use that these are put to in the political arena is considered politics. The unvirtuous circle of capitalism, where concentrated income and wealth are used to affect political outcomes so as to increase concentrated income and wealth, ties economics to politics through the incompatibility of capitalism with democracy.

Modern electoral politics replaces this relationship of economics to politics with color-coded branding— red or blue, where ‘our guy’ is what is good and true about America. The other party exists to pin ‘our guy’ into a corner that prevents him / her from acting on this goodness. Barack Obama was prevented from enacting his ‘true’ progressive agenda by Republican obstructionists. Donald Trump is being persecuted by deep-state, snowflake, socialists.

Left unaddressed and largely unconsidered has been the persistence of class relations. The rich continue to get richer, the rest of us, not so much. For all of the claims of political dysfunction, when it comes to bailouts and tax cuts, wars and weaponry and policing and surveillance, these opposition parties can be counted on to come together to overcome their differences. Likewise, when it comes to the public interest, partisan differences are put forward to explain why nothing is possible.


Graph: as illustrated above, in recent decades the greatest gains in the relative wealth of the rich came during the terms of liberal Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Lest this seem— or be framed as, incidental, the liberal Democrat’s support for the mechanism of this enrichment, Wall Street, explains the relationship. In economic terms, Democrats have been the party of the radical right— financialized, neoliberal capitalism, since the inception of neoliberalism in the 1970s. Source:

The unitary direction of this government response in favor of the rich may seem accidental, a byproduct of ‘our system’ of governance. In fact, the defining political ideology of the last half-century has been neoliberalism, defined here as imperialist, state-corporatism, controlled by oligarchs. And contrary to assertions that neoliberalism is a figment of the imagination of the left, its basic tenets were codified in the late 1980s under the term ‘Washington Consensus.’

What the Washington Consensus lays out is the support role that government plays for capitalism. Its tenets are short and highly readable. They provide a blueprint that ties Democratic to Republican political programs since the 1980s. They also tie neoliberalism to the Marxist / Leninist conception of the capitalist state as existing to promote the interests of connected capitalists. Left out, no doubt by accident (not), was / is a theory of class struggle.

When Donald Trump passed tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the rich and corporations, this was the Washington Consensus. When Barack Obama put ‘market mechanisms’ into Obamacare and promoted the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), this was the Washington Consensus. When Bill Clinton tried to privatize Social Security, this was the Washington Consensus. The alleged ‘opposition parties’ have been working together from a single blueprint for governance for four decades.

The intended beneficiary of this unified effort is ‘capitalism,’ conceived as multinational corporations operating with state support to promote a narrowly conceived national interest. An ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) clause was included in NAFTA when Bill Clinton promoted and signed it. An even more intrusive ISDS clause was included in the TPP when Barack Obama promoted it. The intent of these ISDS clauses is to give the prerogative of governance (sovereign power) to corporations.

It is no secret in Washington and outside of it that multinational corporations pay few, if any, taxes. The logic of this is two sided. On the one side, the neoliberal / Washington Consensus premise is that corporations can put the money to better use than government. The other is that the role of government is to support capitalism, not to constrain it. Barack Obama’s consequence-free bailouts of Wall Street, often at the expense of ordinary citizens, possessed an internal logic when considered through this frame.

An historical analog can be found in the relationship of the East India Company to the British empire. The East India Company drew financial, tactical and military support from the British monarchy as its global reach made it a key institution of imperial expansion. Its economic ties gave it a depth and breadth of reach that military occupation alone couldn’t achieve. Centuries later, Mr. Obama made this point when he argued that the TPP was crucial to ‘countering China.’

The rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s was intended to address the alleged failures of the New Deal. By the late 1980s, this new-old ideology had been codified as the Washington Consensus. Its proponents amongst national Democrats morphed into the New Democrats / DLC just as the Soviet Union was coming unwound. The twin ‘failures’ of the New Deal and communism led to the revival of dogmatic capitalism that saw the state as an appendage of capitalist institutions. Bill Clinton was more likely than not sincere when he declared that ‘the era of big government is over.’

The conflation of Democrats with ‘the left’ that first emerged to counter the New Deal in the 1930s, persisted through the 1990s and the 2000s because it was useful to both political parties. Republicans were the party of business while Democrats claimed to be the party of the people. While the New Deal was in place and from a liberal perspective, the Democrats did support a limited conception of the public interest domestically. However, by the time that Bill Clinton entered office, the public interest had been redefined to mean corporate interests.

This tension can be seen more clearly in the fight over NAFTA, which Republicans had been unable to pass before Mr. Clinton entered office. Mr. Clinton was able to use his liberal bona fides— and the fact that he wasn’t a Republican, to bring over just enough Democrats in congress to get NAFTA passed. He went on to divide bourgeois Democrats from the broader Democratic constituency through the use of race and class dog whistles. In this sense, he presaged Donald Trump. The net effect was to successfully divide the Democrat’s constituency by class.

Before Bill Clinton, the anti-NAFTA fight had a clear class component. Organized labor had lined up against the free-trade agenda that was being promoted by Reaganite Republicans. Through his rhetoric of ‘fair’ capitalism and a ‘level playing field,’ Mr. Clinton gave a liberal patina to an utterly retrograde, pre-Great Depression, form of capitalism. With no apparent irony, the Washington Consensus applied a Marxist / Leninist conception of the capitalist state without any pretense of it mitigating capitalist excess.

The clutter of party politics creates … [more]
us  politics  democrats  republicans  marxism  karlmarx  class  capitalism  neoliberalism  2019  roburie  billclinton  barackobama  donaldtrump  oligarchy  ideology  ronaldreagan  canon  labor  organizing  left  nafta  freetrade  inequality  freedom  liberty  washingtonconsensus  1980  1970s  1908s  leninism  excess  recessions  markets  government  tpp 
4 weeks ago by robertogreco
The Brexiteers’ idea of how WTO rules would work is pure fantasy | Kojo Koram | Opinion | The Guardian
To understand why parts of the Tory party are happy for Britain to walk in the opposite direction to the rest of the world regarding WTO terms, we must understand their attraction to the myth of how in centuries past, Britain became rich through “global free trade”. With influential economists David Ricardo and Adam Smith serving as intellectual forefathers, Britain’s rise to prominence is seen as intertwined with the rise of the doctrine of free trade, with the removal of legal restrictions on trade producing a system where natural British industriousness and innovation could thrive.

Celebrating and exaggerating Britain’s free-trade policies of the late 19th century, this narrative ignores the prologue to the story, in which the British empire first accumulated wealth through gunboat diplomacy and enforced markets over the 18th and early 19th centuries. Britain only embraced unilateral zero tariffs once its geopolitical power had been built up, and it would quickly depart from free trade and move towards protectionism at the start of the 20th century through the policy of imperial preference, encouraging trade within the empire.

However, the myth persists that anything that promotes free trade promotes British interests. Brexiteers promote a fantasy ideal of the WTO being the answer to all Britain’s problems despite the libraries of research that argue that its rules lead to the impoverishment of countries that have to rely on them. Because Brexiteers misunderstand Britain’s past, they believe that Britain has a “special relationship” to world trade. They cannot fathom the damage that relying on WTO terms to govern trade with our largest trading partner will do to the economy, even if it is obvious to rest of the world.
UK  EU  Brexit  noDeal  WTO  trade  freeTrade  history  delusion  hardBrexit  politics 
december 2018 by petej

« earlier    

related tags

1908s  1970s  1980  2017  2019  africa  agreements  alexanderhamilton  alignment  americanhistory:economic  analysis  anationatrisk  andreasschleicher  andresmanuellopezobrador  andrewold  apologetics  apple  apps  article  audreywatters  authoritarianism  avocados  backlash  barackobama  benjamindoxtdator  billclinton  blairtony  borders  brettonwoods  brexit  business  canada  canon  capitalism  cathydavidson  cdnpoli  ceta  china  class  coffee  coldwar  coldwar2  colonialism  commonmarket  competition  compromise  conservatism  corbynjeremy  corporatism  credentialing  curriculum  customs  customsunion  cwrightmills  data  dataviz  davos  dc:creator=masonpaul  dctagged  debate  debt  delusion  democracy  democrats  depression  derechistas  deregulation  devereuxjosephs  diet  division  donaldtrump  doughenwood  duncansmithiain  ec  ecj  economicdevelopment  economics  economy  edtech  education  eea  efta  encryption  england  ethnonationalism  eu  europe  excess  explanation  facism  fairtrade  fbi  fear  finance  fintech  food  foreignaffairs  foreignpolicy  foss4gna  foxliam  france  freedom  freedomofmovement  freemarkets  freetradeagreement  freetradearea  freetrading  friedmanthomas  friedrichlist  fta  future  futurism  gardinerbarry  gatt  ge2017  generalelection  geohipster  geopolitics  gilliantett  globalisation  globalization  government  greatbritain  hammondphilip  hardbrexit  health  henrygiroux  history  hypocrisy  ianjukes  identity  ideology  iea  ifttt  imagery  imf  immigration  imperialism  india  indiana  industrialstrategy  inequality  internationaltrade  ip  ireland  japan  jeffreysachs  jimcarroll  jobs  johndewey  johnmaynardkeynes  johnsonboris  jurisdiction  karlfisch  karlmarx  kavanaughbrett  kerifacer  knowledge  labor  labourparty  lancasterhouse  latecapitalism  latinamerica  law  lawsonnigel  leave  left  leisure  lemairebruno  leninism  liberalism  liberty  lindadarling-hammond  mansionhouse  manufacturing  markets  marxism  max-fac  maytheresa  mercosur  mexico  michaelberman  michaelsalwen  migration  military  militaryindustrialcomplex  morality  mortality  mostlikelytosuccess  nafta  nannystate  nationalism  negotiations  neoliberalism  news  nodeal  northernireland  norway  nostalgia  nytimes  oecd  okheelee  oligarchy  organic  organizing  passporting  patersonowen  paulkrugman  pay  pedagogy  peoplesvote  polarisation  policy  political/economy  politics  populism  poverty  power  presidenttrump  productivity  prosperity  protectionism  puertorico  quotes  reagan  reaganronald  recessions  redlines  redwoodjohn  referendum  reform  regulation  regulatoryalignment  remain  republicanparty  republicans  research  richardriley  robotics  robots  roburie  rodneybrooks  rodrikdani  ronaldreagan  russia  sandersbernie  schools  scottmcleod  services  sindicatos  singlemarket  smith/adam  socialstudies  society  softbrexit  sovereignty  sovietunion  speech  sputnik  statistics  stiglitzjoseph  stratification  subsidies  success  summerslarry  tariff  tariffs  taxes  taxhaven  technology  teddintersmith  thatcher  theeconomist  thomasfriedman  tonywagner  toryparty  tpp  trade  tradedeficit  tradedislocation  tradepolicy  trans-pacificpartnership  transition  transparency  trump/donaldjohn  trump  trumpdonald  trumponomics  tuskdonald  twitter  uk  ukip  umunnachuka  unemployment  us  usa  usforeignpolicy/latinamerica  uspoli  ussr  video  wages  war  washingtonconsensus  willieosterweil  work  worldeconomicforum  worldtrade  wto  ww2  xenophobia  xijinping 

Copy this bookmark: