The global recession and an ideological shift?

Valmont

I wondering what people thought about the effects of the recession on the public's political ideologies? Will there be a shift away from capitalism toward Marxism and Socialism and will Joe Higgins gain more support? I've seen a lot of posters around town lately announcing the downfall of capitalism and how we should now being heralding the onset of Anarchism, socialism etc. I know that the Ayn Rand Institute will take a hit but do you think that socialist political parties will have a resurgence in popularity?

mike65

Nope, didn't happen any time previously. In fact the last serious recession period healded the New Right.

marcsignal

mike65 wrote: »

Nope, didn't happen any time previously. In fact the last serious recession period healded the New Right.

possibly mike, but the peasants are not fickle anymore, they are educated this time around

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

I don't think the problems are wholly due to capitalism; they are due to unbridled capitalism.

To a limited extent, Joe Higgins is right in applying Marxist analysis: society in general, and the economy in particular, is contested by interest groups. In recent years, the moneyed interests have prevailed, largely by exercising influence on governments and the major institutions, both national and international. Where I would part company from Higgins (and Marx) is in prescribing remedies. While Marx was perhaps the greatest theoretician of how society actually operates, he was rather less good at setting out how a society should operate.

But when I hear people advocating yet more unbridled capitalism as the cure, I find that even more alarming than simplistic socialist slogans. And the libertarian mé-féiners drive me to feelings of despair.

Valmont

Donegalfella you seem to know a good bit about this sort of thing, any books you would recommend to someone wanting to get a better grasp on the situation? Prefereably one without a socialist undertone. Any ideas?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In recent years, the moneyed interests have prevailed, largely by exercising influence on governments and the major institutions, both national and international.

I don't really want to get into a debate on Marx, though his description as the greatest theorist on society is almost good enough bait for me to bite, but I take serious issue with this line.

Take one long look at our public pay bill and wage agreements over the last decade and a half. The unions have exerted just as much, if not more, influence over the Government. I don't think it's at all valid to say that it was purely the moneyed interests that exerted major influence in the boom. There has been a major transfer of wealth from the tax payer (and within the economy) both to the moneyed classes and the unionised workers within the public service (I'm not arguing that your average public servant is super wealthy only that pay increases to them have been far above both the rate of inflation and the average public sector increases and that these increases have been funded by the tax payer without realistically delivering much in return).

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't recommend a book, but if someone wants to try and get a grip on the changing world economy they could do far worse than getting a subscription to the Economist and reading it. It's biases are strongly towards free trade and mildly to the right economically* (in American terms). It's not so much an ideology as a source of information.

I even know a few die hard Socialists who read it every week precisely because of its no-nonsense approach to current and world affairs.


*It is in my opinion, nowhere close to as far right as many people (who don't read it) seem to think. If anything the paper is quite sceptical about extreme right positions with respect to unbridled markets etc.

sceptre

nesf wrote: »

I even know a few die hard Socialists who read it every week precisely because of its no-nonsense approach to current and world affairs.

I'm sure the die-hard socialists also want to know what the enemy is thinking:)

nesf

sceptre wrote: »

I'm sure the die-hard socialists also want to know what the enemy is thinking:)

For that they read the FT and WSJ.

PeakOutput

do you believe that a completely unregulated market is the way to go then?

i used to think that we had to just let it all play out on its own but im begining to see the so called lefts points on regulation i think. there needs to be some regulation there to protect those with no voice or they would get run over in no time at all. i read a good article from the new york times in the 70's the other day titled 'a business's social responsibility is to make profit' and i agree that a business should only be concerned with making money for its share holders and its the people and individuals that have social responsiblity and therefore the government. so the government appears to have to step in and regulate.

i dont think im right donegalman as i dont know enough about it i just want you to tell me why im wrong


as of right now i think the last 5 years have left an impression on me that the right wings view of a countries defence coupled with a moderate left wings view of financial regulation is the way to go. before i would have said that a completely free market will always be better in the long run and that america were just war mongerers. so thats how my opinion has changed

MG

Valmont wrote: »

I wondering what people thought about the effects of the recession on the public's political ideologies? Will there be a shift away from capitalism toward Marxism and Socialism and will Joe Higgins gain more support? I've seen a lot of posters around town lately announcing the downfall of capitalism and how we should now being heralding the onset of Anarchism, socialism etc. I know that the Ayn Rand Institute will take a hit but do you think that socialist political parties will have a resurgence in popularity?

I think we are alrady seeing a shift to the left in some ways. The Labour party has shifted a little to the left under Eamon Gilmore I think.

Also, the unions seem to be more militant and are spinning furiously about the "wurkahs not paying for the mistakes of rich bizinezmen".

Most of all I think you can see it subtly on the radio shows. Two years ago all the texts were about "taking personal responsibility" and railing against the "nanny state". Now they say "the government must do more". (I'd swear it's the same people too )

Ironically, much of our trouble today is caused, in my opinion, by Bertie placating the left (the unions) with overgenerous pay deals based on unsustainable revenue.

I hope we don't go too far to the left and encourage wealth creation rather than policies which disincentivise work and innovation.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think the problems are wholly due to capitalism; they are due to unbridled capitalism.

To a limited extent, Joe Higgins is right in applying Marxist analysis: society in general, and the economy in particular, is contested by interest groups. In recent years, the moneyed interests have prevailed, largely by exercising influence on governments and the major institutions, both national and international. Where I would part company from Higgins (and Marx) is in prescribing remedies. While Marx was perhaps the greatest theoretician of how society actually operates, he was rather less good at setting out how a society should operate.

But when I hear people advocating yet more unbridled capitalism as the cure, I find that even more alarming than simplistic socialist slogans. And the libertarian mé-féiners drive me to feelings of despair.

if you want to find a solution for something, you need to define the problem correctly. To say that what is happening now is due to unbridled capitalism does not fit with the reality of the situation. Big Gov and central bank policy has corrupted the information flow to the market. By the definition of an Ayn
Rand idealised free market economy , the world has become heavily socialised in league with "big business" , the conventional wisdom is more big gov, and more regulation (but trust us we will get it right this time!)
A real free market would have taken risk more seriously. A recession would not bring the sytem down as debt would never have been pumped up to such high levels.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

if you want to find a solution for something, you need to define the problem correctly. To say that what is happening now is due to unbridled capitalism does not fit with the reality of the situation. Big Gov and central bank policy has corrupted the information flow to the market. By the definition of an Ayn
Rand idealised free market economy , the world has become heavily socialised in league with "big business" , the conventional wisdom is more big gov, and more regulation (but trust us we will get it right this time!)
A real free market would have taken risk more seriously. A recession would not bring the sytem down as debt would never have been pumped up to such high levels.

I don't accept that.

Capitalists in pursuit of profit will corrupt government if it serves their purpose and they can do it. That does not mean that the appropriate response is to abolish government so far as that is possible. Societies prior to the growth of modern forms of government (generally "bigger") were very unequal and unjust. We don't need to go back to that.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We don't need to go back to that.

go back to what exactly, we dont have a society where 90% of the population are unskilled drones to be sent to the fields or down the mines.

Otherwise The only analysis that I have come across that was warning about this was the Austrian/Libertarian position, the opposite case put forward by the Keynsians is that there is always jus one more "tweak" required to get things straight , other then that were talking Eastern Europe in the 1970's.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Societies prior to the growth of modern forms of government (generally "bigger") were very unequal and unjust. We don't need to go back to that.

Yes but was it bigger government that made them more equal and more just or something else? Much of the growth of Government, bureaucracy and taxation was due to World War I and World War II, not in order to create more equal or just societies.

Then again, we should probably try to agree what more just and more equal mean before we even get further into this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

Jaysus! The neocon/ultraliberal project has failed as spectacularly as communism, and yet its advocates argue on. They want to invent a society: ****-all government and everything will be hunky-dory!

No thanks.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Jaysus! The neocon/ultraliberal project has failed as spectacularly as communism, and yet its advocates argue on. They want to invent a society: ****-all government and everything will be hunky-dory!

No thanks.

Pfft, do you want to debate this or not? Not all of us are neocons you know.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

By definition it has to be coercive in order to uphold the rule of law though. Also while many on the right would agree that small government is preferable to big government, there is much disagreement on what small means. I wouldn't privatise all the roads, rails or electricity lines for instance. But I'd also not have any problem with people having to forfeit their vote if they were on the dole for longer than a year (i.e. if you don't actively contribute to the State through taxation, I don't see why you should get a vote). Which is well to the right of what many neocons would believe.

NewDubliner

nesf wrote: »

(i.e. if you don't actively contribute to the State through taxation, I don't see why you should get a vote).

Anybody who lives here pays some kind of tax (VAT, for example).

nesf

NewDubliner wrote: »

Anybody who lives here pays some kind of tax (VAT, for example).

I'm not convinced that there isn't an important difference between a household which contributes direct tax (i.e. PAYE/PRSI) and one that doesn't (the indirect vs direct tax question is an important one in these debates, i.e. any tourist/visitor pays VAT etc). You have to give people incentives to get off the dole. We can't remove the dole from them, that'll just encourage crime and cause horrible hardship. Removing their vote on the other hand won't materially hurt them but would remind them that the State isn't meant to be an ATM.

Then, I view voting as something that should be an automatic privilege rather than a right (i.e. something that you can lose but automatically receive at 18).

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yep, sure thing. The current global recession (which were talking about) had its origins in the international banking system not in the property market of Ireland. It may suit your argument to blame big government in Ireland but the reality is that in most western countries "the market" proved itself to be what it is: a collection of selfish entities who's nature is to put self preservation
before the greater economy. Once these entities had the power the bring things down: it was only a matter of time.

The true free market may work well in theory or even within a closed market.
You will get big business and resultant government protection...and non sensical wars. Unless you want to change the nature of international trade and government any free market will now never work without regulation and that means state interference.

For example simple regulation like they have in France against sub prime loans in this country would have dissuaded the human impulse to trade in houses when the price increased for people who couldnt afford it. That piece of "state interference" might have made a lot more people in this country a bit more secure now.

Your description of typical socialist is very interesting. Sounds like you are projecting one or two characters you met in your college days onto all socialists?
A narrow view really.

One of Obama's first acts will be to close down Quantanamo Bay, stop US torture and put the US foreign policeback in accord with the the Geneva Convention. To undue some of the work of your last champion of freedom namely, George W Bush.

After each period in a civilisation there is a need for a step back and an adjustment. Through history some of the proponents of the passing system dont get it, and keep flogging the dead horse.

Your post reminded me of the story of Nero, playing his fiddle in complete denial....putting blame elsewhere while the world of his philosophy was crashing around his ears.

(Who is your next champion of Freedom BTW, Sarah Palin?

Good luck.

silverharp

T runner wrote: »

To undue some of the work of your last champion of freedom namely, George W Bush.

Good luck.

Why the strawman arguments? You just dont get it, managed markets are destined to fail. The US has been living beyond its means for the last couple of decades, as the old saying goes "it was capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down" maybe its just a natural cycle of decline.I wish Obama luck, but his stimulus package will fail as once the money is spent the economy will collapse back into a recession.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Pfft, do you want to debate this or not? Not all of us are neocons you know.

A constructive debate requires some sharing of foundational beliefs. Only if such exists can we try to tease out the differences.

I do not accept the minimalist view of the functions of the state, nor do I believe that economic growth is the only way to serve the needs and wishes of people (although I accept that it is important).

So where can we start a debate? It looks like too much work.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A constructive debate requires some sharing of foundational beliefs. Only if such exists can we try to tease out the differences.

I do not accept the minimalist view of the functions of the state, nor do I believe that economic growth is the only way to serve the needs and wishes of people (although I accept that it is important).

So where can we start a debate? It looks like too much work.

A constructive debate can be one where the differences in foundational beliefs are explored though. It helps people better understand the opposing views, for instance I don't agree that economic growth is the only way to serve the needs and wishes of people and I don't really think many on the right would think that either, for instance. Most importantly such a debate can help people on the sidelines grasp the underlying differences in the ideologies.

T runner

silverharp wrote: »

Why the strawman arguments? You just dont get it, managed markets are destined to fail. The US has been living beyond its means for the last couple of decades, as the old saying goes "it was capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down" maybe its just a natural cycle of decline.I wish Obama luck, but his stimulus package will fail as once the money is spent the economy will collapse back into a recession.

But the market fell due to the banks being allowed to sub-prime.
Allowing the banks operate and lend freely to American's facilitated them to spend beyond their means. Allowing then operate freely enabled them to pass on the Trosians around the world, cripple the banking system and bring the global economy down.
It is not possible to have a completely free market as you suggested you need to have regulation.

I may not "get it" the way you seem to think you do, but gladly for the world economy and the ordinary people the new leaders in the States dont get it either.

People in the States (and Ireland) were spending beyond their means but this was not due to the market being "managed", just regulated incorrectly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

T runner wrote: »

People in the States (and Ireland) were spending beyond their means but this was not due to the market being "managed", just regulated incorrectly.

part of "getting it" is understanding that in the US case the Fed and state will pursue any policy that will maintain positive GDP all the time. This has led to a situation where the Fed has had to blow up a bigger bubble after a previous bubble has burst. Case in point the dot com bubble crash forced/allowed the Fed to pump up the property market. As far as the Fed was concerned until 2006 it was a job well done. Throw in bailouts like LTCM in the late 90's and you have a situation where borrowers and lenders "forgot" about risk. A true free market would make market participants a little more cagey as they would be aware that there are less safety nets. Lenders wouldnt lend to people who couldnt pay, savers would query more where they keep their deposits to avoid a risk of default and borrowers would not borrow 10 times their salary on some la la fiction that house prices always go up.