In certain circles, to be
accused of trying to reform – rather than transform – capitalism has long been
one of the gravest criticisms.
Not only this accusation but the very distinction has, however, always seemed a
bit ridiculous. What would “transformation” actually mean? And who on earth
could be attracted to the notion of wholescale nationalisation and associated
bureaucratic power – to say nothing of even worse scenarios??
Temperamentally, I grant you,
I’ve always been an incrementalist – rather than a revolutionary – influenced first
by Tony Crosland’s 1956 revisionist “The Future of Socialism”; then, at
University, by Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies” and, in the early
80s, by Charles
Lindblom – who got us all to respect incrementalism.
Although Margaret Thatcher kept assering that capitalism was the only way – or, in her own words, “there is No Alternative”, a mantra which soon attracted the acronym TINA – we have, since the end of the Cold War, become familiar with the “Varieties of capitalism” literature. Eased into it by Michel Albert, with later work by the likes of Crouch, Hall and Soskice being much more academic and, often, impenetrable
Although Margaret Thatcher kept assering that capitalism was the only way – or, in her own words, “there is No Alternative”, a mantra which soon attracted the acronym TINA – we have, since the end of the Cold War, become familiar with the “Varieties of capitalism” literature. Eased into it by Michel Albert, with later work by the likes of Crouch, Hall and Soskice being much more academic and, often, impenetrable
By the turn of the
millennium the message seemed to be that Capitalism takes various forms; is
constantly changing; and will always be with us. But increasingly, people
were wondering whether it was not out of control. Pages 57-66 of my Dispatches to the Next Generation plot the increasing dystoptic aspect of
book titles
But a few years back,
something changed. It
wasn’t the global crisis in itself but rather the combination of two things –
first the suggestion that the entire engine of the system (profitability)was reaching vanishing point; and, second, a sudden realisation that
robotization was a serious threat to even middle-class jobs.
Now the titles talk of the
new phenomenon of “post-capitalism”
Paul Collier’s book – “The
Future of Capitalism – our present anxieties” to which I have devoted 4
posts – touches only very briefly on the second of the changes. But I recommend
the book for its rare moral – rather than technocratic - tone and for it
being the first book I can remember which takes as its starting point the
concerns of ordinary people and tries to identify practical policies which
might actually deal with issues such as the decline in social trust
Essential follow-up
reading
I realise the
previous reading list was too long. The following are they key bits of writing
I would recommend for those who want to know more
Why the third way failed –
economics, morality and the origins of the “big society”; Bill Jordan (2010) is a
very thoughtful treatment of the experience…..(google sample only)..reviewed here
Revisiting Associative
Democracy;
ed Westall (2011). A short, overdue assessment of the relevance of Paul Hirst’s
ideas - more than a decade after his death
Communitarianism
Revisited; Amitai Etzioni (2015) The father of the modern movement revisits
the issues
Those curious
about the “Varieties of Capitalism” literature and able and willing to subject
themselves to the torture of academic writing can skim one of the following..
No comments:
Post a Comment