Politics is no longer fit for purpose

But it's we humans who have broken the system, and it's down to us to fix it.

I’ve been following the career of the economist and political journalist Grace Blakeley for some years now. When I say ‘following the career’ what I mean, of course, is reading what she writes, and listening to what she says on TV and in other public fora. So I was interested to read this recent post of hers in which she concludes that political debate does not change people’s minds.

She’s dead right about that. And I’m delighted she’s discovered this fundamental law of social and economic change while still in her early thirties, because it took me a lot longer.

For those who don’t know her work, much of it is driven by her strong belief in socialism. I suspect she wouldn’t object if I called her a Marxist. These days there’s a huge amount of hysteria around Marx, Marxism and what it means to be a Marxist.

Marx was the last in a line of great economic thinkers, including Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill: the classical economists who laid the foundations that today help us to to understand what the economy is, how it works, and what determines the outcomes it delivers.

And while I don’t agree with everything he wrote, my own world view remains heavily influenced by the German philosopher, albeit laced with a thick dollop of Henry George.

Henry George and Karl Marx. Photos: Mary Evans Picture Library

For the economic nerds among you: the essential difference between the two bearded gents above was that Marx thought it was the struggle between labour and capital, and the enduring power imbalance between the owners of these two factors of production that underpinned social inequality. Henry George focussed on the third factor: land, and suggested that until economists (and governments) recognised land as special case, and fundamentally different from capital, there could be no end to the struggle.

Marx died is 1883, 34 years before the October Revolution in Russia. If some of the most vile autocrats in human history subsequently co-opted, and adapted certain aspects of his thought to their own evil ends, I’m not sure he can be held responsible. Neither should those who follow his teachings be castigated for citing his work, or attaching themselves to his philosophical legacy. This is, of course, a very old argument, but it rarely gets an airing these days, so I mention it for younger readers.

For me, a turning point came when I learned the difference between political economy, the branch of moral philosophy developed by the classical economists; and the modern discipline of economics, the all-too-successful result of efforts by the lesser mortals that followed to reshape the intellectual landscape by turning the study of economics into a pseudo-science; one that prohibits the kind of moral, political and value judgements their forebears made central to their work.

In neo-classical economics, as it has become known, the value judgements are baked in: it tends to value abstract concepts such as markets, rather than the interests of sentient beings like, well, us.

In my twenties it was Marx who largely informed my political and economic world view, often filtered through the lens of the magazine Marxism Today which, during it’s final eurocommunist incarnation under the editorship of Martin Jacques, became the intellectual hub of the British left-liberal establishment, and included among its roster of writers the likes of Eric Hobsbawm, Beatrix Campbell, Stuart Hall, Victoria Brittain and Martin Kettle.

Having coined the term Thatcherism, Marxism Today set itself the task of reporting from the frontline of the disintegrating social fabric of Britain in the wake of Margaret Thatcher’s efforts to ‘free’ the UK economy; of analysing the motivations of those who supported the changes she introduced; and of updating Marxian analysis so the left might better respond to the challenges her economic revolution represented for those of us who believe in the possibility a more inclusive society.

Marxism Today published its final edition in December 1991. It may have survived a year longer than Margaret Thatcher, but it was she who won the war. When the Conservatives lost the 1997 elections to Tony Blair, much of his New Labour manifesto could easily have been written by Thatcher’s advisers. Not only had the Iron Lady succeeded in changing Britain, but her brand of low-regulation, service-led, free market capitalism had become unassailable across the western world.

Thatcher’s remarkable achievement helps explain why Grace has concluded that ‘doing media is a waste of time’. It’s not because she grounds her arguments in a Marxist world view, though kudos to her for being one of the few such thinkers with the courage to regularly put her head above the parapet. It’s because, over the last four decades, politics and it’s mass media handmaiden have become so obsessed with an ideology that refuses to countenance any alternative to current economic arrangements, that there is no longer any place for opposing views, however well-reasoned.

I’m not sure Grace, who has an excellent grasp of economics and whose debating skills are equally good, could have done anything differently. As she says, the world cannot currently be changed by the means available to those of us who seek to change it, and that’s because politics is no longer fit for purpose.

She goes on to say:

‘people don’t need to be convinced the system isn’t working; they need to be inspired to change it.’

Right again. Many people, in this country and elsewhere, know ‘the system’ isn’t working because they feel its failure every day of their lives.

And while they certainly do ‘need to be inspired to change it’, as I argued in my 2005 book, The Possibility of Progress, the ability to inspire people to organise to bring about progressive social change is heavily constrained by several factors:

1. Not enough people engage seriously with politics: either because they don’t feel able to, are not interested, or don’t think they can make an difference.

2. Among those that do, their understanding of how the economy works, and therefore the options for changing it, are poor, largely because we are constantly told there is no alternative.

3. People struggle to understand that the power exerted by wealthy elites ensures that all attempts to bring about progressive change will inevitably fail. Worse, those elites are still forcing change in the wrong direction to further consolidate their own wealth and privilege.

4. The way current arrangements ensure the continued economic security of the comfortably-off middle classes is enmeshed in the super-charged financial system that now dominates the economy. (Even the super-rich realise the need for a co-dependent cohort of less-but-still-quite-rich people).

None of the great classical economists could have anticipated the extent to which the financialisation of the global economy would enable markets to dictate policy to democratically-elected governments. At the time of the 2008 financial crisis, many argued that the accelerating process of financialisation needed to be reined in through tougher regulation, so politicians could once again make policy. But little has changed.

Instead, with the support of supine politicians, the people who control and benefit from unfettered financial markets have continued to devise ever more ingenious ways of making more money for those who already have plenty, and to develop steadily more opaque mechanisms for kicking the inevitable risks associated with such schemes further into the long grass.

If we are going to create a more inclusive, just and sustainable country (and world, for this is not something that can be achieved by one country acting alone) then we need to find ways to address all of this. And this can no longer be achieved through conventional means of political organisation.

Traditional political organising will fail because the link between our system of parliamentary democracy and grass roots political activism has been steadily weakened. Political parties routinely ignore the wishes of their members. In the UK, the Labour Party might once have been the most likely route for bringing about progressive social change, but no longer. It’s leaders have long given up trying to shape public opinion, let alone offering any moral vision; instead basing their policy decisions on a very narrow reading of what the electorate - as directed by the popular press and focus groups - will tolerate.

It is possible that a new progressive party might gain some electoral support. But reports this weekend of a new party being established by MPs expelled from the Labour Party would be more encouraging if any of those MPs had taken the time to develop a new and convincing narrative of how we might begin to transform the economy.

Such transformation is impossible without a change in the perceptions of ordinary people. And changing such ingrained perceptions requires a coherent story, cleverly communicated by visionary leaders. As things stand, it is the mendacious lies of Nigel Farage and his Reform UK cronies who are attracting most electoral support. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Imagine if an alternative to Farage were to emerge with an entirely new, morally ambitious, narrative: one about building a new Britain, a country at ease with itself, a country keen to collaborate as closely as possible with it’s neighbours in finding solutions to common problems. A country that understands that a thriving, dynamic economy is best achieved by involving everyone who wants to work and rewarding them properly for their efforts. A country that recognises the imperative for the private and public sectors to work together to drive the economy forward. A country that sees the challenge of climate change not as a reason to bury our heads in the sand, but as the immense opportunity it offers to reconfigure the economy and put Britain firmly on the path to prosperity.

Nobody in conventional politics is getting anywhere near telling this kind of story, which is why the established political parties are leaving the goal wide open for Farage and his counterparts in other countries.

Yes, of course we need more (and better) political organisation. But with legitimate protest organisations facing proscription in so-called free countries like the UK, this will not be easy, neither will it be sufficient.

As well as charismatic leaders with the moral vision to articulate a different future for the world, the debate about how to reconfigure the economy needs to transcend traditional precepts of left and right, which too often leave no room for nuance. That debate also needs to embrace the obvious truth that both market freedoms and a strong state are essential to prosperity.

Our perceptions are heavily shaped by our beliefs about what can be changed, and what can’t. But everything about the way our society and economy work today was designed by human beings. And everything we have created we can choose to change.

Finally, we urgently need an outbreak of ecumenism among those of us who want to bring about a more just, inclusive and sustainable world. The inability of people and groups on the progressive liberal left to work together towards the kind of society we all wish to see is one of the biggest obstacles to progress.

Whether or not you believe that Karl Marx offers any solutions, it's crucial that all of us who believe in the possibility of a better world start pulling in the same direction, before it's too late.