I'm developing a taste for aphorisms, funny anecdotes, one-liners, and such.
At the same time I've noticed that social democratic bloggers, having already re-defined Social Democracy and Socialism, are now intent on re-defining the meaning of capitalism. Well, monkey see, monkey do: I thought I could try my hand at this re-definition business, and so I picked Social Democracy.
However, given that formal definitions seem boring (at least, nobody who is somebody uses them), I tried to find a witty or at least funny way to convey the same idea. Luckily, searching quotes from famous (or notorious, depending on where you stand) characters I found this gem (my translation from the Spanish original):
"Former [Venezuelan Social Democrat] president Carlos Andrés Pérez, during his first government upon being asked whether his regime's political stance was capitalistic or communistic, uttered this phrase, already most famous: 'Neither the one, nor the other; just the opposite'."
Indeed.
----------
Like Keynes' celebrated rebuke "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" the anecdote above seems to be equally apocryphal and is often attributed -- with somewhat different wordings and more or less details -- to a variety of Latin American politicians, well-known for their Bushisms.
However, the most believable version traces its origin back to Mexican comedian Mario Moreno (better-known as Cantinflas, his onscreen persona's name). For those not in the know: Moreno is to Charlie Chaplin, what Cantinflas is to the Tramp.
So, unlike Social Democracy itself, that quote was originally meant to be humorous.
It's easy for effete trendies in developed countries to declare their readiness to wage class war on behalf of the educated bourgeoisie.
If you have ever met an Australian Young Liberal, mentally copy and paste his/her picture here; otherwise, these two (US, and UK) will do.
The scene could take place at a social/sporting event, in a prestigious and expensive university campus. Comfortably surrounded by their cronies -- all coming from the best families -- between drinks, our self-appointed champion of capitalism doesn't worry to have his/her manicured hands dirty: the allegedly intellectual side of repression. Civilised, white, urbane: think of Apple Inc.
Filmmaker Joshua Oppenheimer, who will be visiting Australia, interviewed last Thursday by Tony Jones for ABC's Lateline (video and transcript) has seen, spoken and filmed the other side of that coin, the bloody, muddy, lower, outsourced end of the repression industry. Think of Foxconn or Pegatron.
Mark Kermode reviews Oppenheimer's "The Look of Silence", companion documentary to Oppenheimer's 2012 "The Act of Killing" on the murder of up to a million Indonesian communists:
"The Look of Silence" Official Trailer 2 (2015) - Joshua Oppenheimer Documentary HD:
"The Act of Killing" trailer 2013:
Just like there's no Apple Inc without Pegatron and Foxconn, there's no "intellectual" anti-Marxism without these guys. As we lower-class Aussies say: the same shit from a different pile.
That's what is involved in taking sides in a class war, in the real world.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24 KJV)
Over the years regulars of this blog have seen many favourable references to Prof. Bill Mitchell, so I suppose nobody will be surprised to read that I'm one of his fans.
Prof. Mitchell has recently written several posts on the subject of the Left failings, perhaps as a sounding board for a book on that subject which he plans.
"[T]he [Left and Right] categories remain influential and meaningful but are blurred through ignorance as to how the monetary system operates. Left-wingers fall prey to right-wing policies because they have bought the TINA myth. That is the only way one could explain the Syriza disaster, for example."
For what it is worth, I do not dispute the theoretical validity of MMT (of which Mitchell is a leading proponent) or its importance. Still, I cannot share Mitchell's thesis, particularly on the reason why pseudo-Left parties are a constant disappointment.
Mitchell starts his argument quoting from Knapp and Wright on the historical origin of the Left/Right distinction:
"France invented the terms Left and Right early in the great Revolution of 1789-94 which first limited the powers of, and then overthrew, the Bourbon monarchy. Those noble members of the first National Assembly who wished to limit the powers of the monarch moved to sit with the commoners on the left of the Assembly; those who still supported the absolutism of what was shortly to become known as the ancien re?gime sat on the right, as seen from the chair of the presiding officer."
That quote expresses graphically the distinction Right vs Left. We have two sides in dispute. To be a Leftie is to take one side, to move to sit with the commoners, to become their partisan.
To be a "Rightie" (if that word exists) is to move away from this side, to sit with the other guys, to play for the other team.
"You must decide who your comrades are going to be in life's struggles. You must decide which side you are on. Will you side with the oppressed, or with the oppressors? Will you side with the exploiters, or with the exploited? Will you side with the occupiers, or with the occupied? I cannot make that decision for you, and neither can Smith and Marx and Durkheim and Freud and Weber." (here)
Like Wolff said, nobody can make that decision for you. But a decision must be made.
One may reproach Keynes many things -- and I, personally, do -- but one cannot reproach him for expressing his own personal choice:
"Ought I, then, to join the Labour Party? Superficially that is more attractive. But looked at closer, there are great difficulties. To begin with, it is a class party, and the class is not my class. If I am going to pursue sectional interests at all, I shall pursue my own. When it comes to the class struggle as such, my local and personal patriotisms, like those of every one else, except certain unpleasant zealous ones, are attached to my own surroundings. I can be influenced by what seems to me to be Justice and good sense; but the class war will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie."
Now, I'm sure Mitchell doesn't need a Joe Bloggs, like yours truly, lecturing him on that. Still, when it comes to a Left-wing government, this is what he has to say:
"A left-wing government would not aspire to be 'pro business' but rather realise that the relationships between workers and capital are antagonistic and the state has to act as a mediator between the two if the workers are to access the productivity gains of the system and enjoy income security".
In other words, Mitchell's normative conception of a Left-wing government implies a rightward shift in its focus: from being a representative of the workers, their partisan, into becoming a mediator between workers and business; from sitting with the commoners, to sitting between them and the monarch; from a player, into a referee. It must serve both God and Mammon.
Mitchell surely would object to this, but one conclusion one must draw is that when in opposition a Left-wing party can afford "radicalism", when in government it must become impartial, pragmatic, centre, technocratic: Keynesian, in one word.
But -- other than in Keynes' over-inflated self-image -- is that level of detachment even feasible? Can one really serve God and Mammon?
In this context, seemingly, the criticism of Syriza and other pseudo-Left parties is not so much that they drifted to the Right, but that they drifted too much, beyond what's technically justified.
----------
MMTers may object that the correct understanding of how a fully monetary economy works empowers government to satisfy both workers and business, at the same time.
Personally, I'm skeptical. The reasons are many, but this is not the place for them. Suffice it to say that it has not worked: if it had, Mitchell and other accomplished MMTers would not have to spend their time teaching the basics of MMT. As Chris Dillow put it:
"It's centrist utopianism - the idea that moderate and feasible tweaks within capitalism can generate big improvements."
After all, if as a matter of positive fact, the "relationships between workers and capital are antagonistic" -- as Mitchell correctly says -- what hope is there for mediation?
----------
Prof. Mitchell, with respect, let's call a spade a spade: a Leftie, as a Leftie, cannot be "impartial", "technocratic", "unbiased", anymore than a "Rightie" could.
But she can try and she will disappoint, as Syriza did:
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15-17, KJV)
So, there is no middle-ground: you cannot fix capitalism by applying a patch here and another there. Unfortunately, it's either God or Mammon.
