LENIN'S TOMB

 

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Gideon's trumpet posted by Richard Seymour

So, George Osborne has sounded the trumpet blast of the Tories' war on public spending, finally acknowledging that the cuts he intends to make will approximate 20% across departments, and will take aim at welfare, tax credits, and pensions. This was always in the pipeline. Nick Clegg has tried to soften the blow by insisting that there will be no return to the mad, belligerent era of Thatcherism, and that the cuts will spare the vulnerable - but pensioners, the poor and welfare recipients (as well as the consumers of public services more generally) are in fact "the vulnerable". They're among the most vulnerable people in society. As Stumbling and Mumbling points out, moreover, Clegg is being extremely disingenuous, to the extent that Thatcher never acheived anything like the level of cuts that ConDemNation intends to deliver.

There is a potential element of shock-and-awe strategy going on here, as the Tories talk up their intended cuts, only to watch the relief set in as they introduce cuts of "only" 15% or 10%. When Cameron warns that the reduction of the public sector will fundamentally alter the British "way of life", it certainly looks like an attempt at rhetorical escalation. But the trouble is that in order to reduce Britain's long-term structural deficit, as the coalition is committed to in its founding pact, meet its new spending commitments, keep to its tax cuts, and ring-fence spending in defence etc., it has to cut spending by even more than it is presently advertising.

The key justification for this policy is the need to restore 'confidence' in the markets. Investors, bonds traders, currency dealers, etc., must have 'confidence' in the UK before they will resume speculation and lending, and thus trigger a renewed period of growth. After all, the financial sector has been the engine of the British economy for a generation, so how is it possible that it won't do so now? Between 1992, following Britain's withdrawal from the ERM, and 2008, Britain experienced an unprecedented period of continuous growth. It was slow growth, at times very weak, but the fact that it was uninterrupted for so long gave the neoliberal consensus a degree of credibility among policymakers, treasury technocrats and Bank of England governors, which was difficult to reverse. This was why the moves to nationalise Northern Rock and involve the government in buying shares in the banks were so reluctant, and so staggered.

To the extent that neoliberal doctrines were taken seriously, government intervention could only be seen as creating economic inefficiency (since a crisis was required to flush out toxic debts, bad investments, failed enterprises, etc.) and "moral hazard" (since irresponsible behaviour would not be punished, but protected and rewarded). But the ruling class is nothing if not pragmatic, and the crisis did produce a demand from businesses for heavy government intervention. Henceforth, the prevailing doctrine among capitalist elites has been the sort of regulatory liberalism proposed by Stiglitz, Sachs et al, which retains the basic structures of liberal capitalism but with increased powers for regulators, and the return of old restrictions on financial activity. However, financial capitalists are fighting hard to limit this, and the signs are that Osborne is prepared to fight their corner. To that extent, the cuts policy points to the continued ability of the financial fraction of capital to assert its hegemony. Especially since manufacturing and services capital is heavily financialised and depends for a considerable portion of its profitability on the City, which redistributes global surplus values to the benefit of UK capital.

The second justification for the cuts policy is that, according to Cameron, reducing the state sector will free up funds for capital investment, and open up new business opportunities. The Tories, and not just the Redwoodite nutters, are insistent that their policy will stimulate private sector growth and job creation of a far more sustainable kind than any growth produced by some bloated bureaucracy. But interest rates are effectively zero, and businesses still aren't borrowing, and therefore still aren't investing. This despite billions in bank bail-outs, emergency tax cuts, and quantitative easing. This clearly is a far deeper crisis of capitalism than the Tories' cleaving to orthodoxy would appear to admit. Martin Wolf, once a doctrinaire monetarist, is the most consistent critic of governments and policymakers demanding a tightening of fiscal policy. Today, like a good born again Keynesian, he highlights the risk of deflation if governments allow fear of 'the markets' to coerce them into imposing fiscal austerity:

[W]hat would a big tightening of fiscal policy deliver? In the absence of effective monetary policy offsets, one would expect aggregate demand to weaken, possibly sharply. Some economists do believe in "Ricardian equivalence" - the notion that private spending would automatically offset fiscal tightening. But, as Mr Posen argues of Japan, "there is no good evidence . . . of strong Ricardian offsets to fiscal policy." In developed countries today, fiscal deficits are surely a consequence of post-crisis private retrenchment, not the other way round.

In short, the deficit is not the cause of weak private sector demand and investment, but the result of it. An attack on the public sector is an attack on one of the few sources of economic growth, and thus on the basis for future taxable income and profits. It may make the deficit larger. It may tip the UK into another recession, or depression. Moreover, there is no great urgency in the UK paying off the deficit, despite the sabre-rattling of the financiers. As Wolf goes on:

As borrowers, the US and UK have advantages: first, their private sector surpluses cover some three-quarters and 90 per cent, respectively, of their fiscal deficits; second, many private-sector investors need assets that match liabilities in their domestic currency; third, because these countries have active central banks, bondholders suffer no significant liquidity risk; fourth, they have floating exchange rates, which take some of the strain of changes in confidence; fifth, they have policy autonomy, which gives a reasonable prospect of near-term economic growth; and, finally, the US offers the world's most credible reserve asset.

So, if the case for cuts as a recipe for growth is so poor, what does that leave us with? Essentially, it gives the government a rare political opportunity to raid the public sector, whatever the consequences for growth, for the benefit of capital, largely financial capital. Don't suppose for a second that the Liberals constitute a moderating input on this trend. Vince Cable is a dedicated privatizer, free trader, and free marketeer. He and George Osborne are as one in seeking to reduce the size of the state, particularly in its capacity as a provider of services, pensions and welfare.

Osborne has declared, not merely portentously, that he intends to revise the relationship between the citizen and the state. He might go further than this. We can consider the institutional arrangements that enable capital accumulation as a mixture of relations between state and capital; between labour and capital; between capital and capital; and between labour and the state. The social struggles of the next few years will be about defining those relationships, and thus the context of any future settlement. It will be in aggregate a class struggle over how much freedom is given to capital, and how much its activities are restricted in the wider social interest; over what rights labour will have with respect to capital (fewer and fewer, if recent court decisions are any guide); and over how much the state will protect labour from the workings of the market with a social safety net comprising health, benefits and free education. Talk of revising the relationship between state and society may be in some measure PR, but the Tories have made their agenda very clear now: they intend that any future settlement will be far more advantageous to private capital, that there will be fewer protections for workers, that public services and welfare will be severely depleted, and that any regulations on capital will be sharply limited and matched by a reduction in "red tape" elsewhere.

Those tailing the Labour leadership in treating this as principally a technocratic issue, an issue merely of when to introduce cuts the better to restore the old order, are thus at the very least politically naive. The old order cannot be restored, and the issues of public sector cuts, privatization and regulatory reform are fundamentally about whose interests future economic growth will serve.

Labels: capitalism, class, cuts, finance capital, financial sector, neoliberalism, pensions, public spending, ruling class, the meaning of david cameron, tories, welfare, working class

8:42:00 am | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | del.icio.us | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it Tweet| Share| Flattr this

Search via Google

Info

Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour's Wiki

Richard Seymour: information and contact

Richard Seymour's agent

RSS

Twitter

Tumblr

Pinterest

Academia

Storify

Donate

corbyn_9781784785314-max_221-32100507bd25b752de8c389f93cd0bb4

Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb
Email:

Lenosphere

Archives

September 2001

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

December 2015

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

Dossiers

Hurricane Katrina Dossier

Suicide Bombing Dossier

Iraqi Resistance Dossier

Haiti Dossier

Christopher Hitchens Dossier

Organic Intellectuals

Michael Rosen

Left Flank

Necessary Agitation

China Miéville

Je Est Un Autre

Verso

Doug Henwood

Michael Lavalette

Entschindet und Vergeht

The Mustard Seed

Solomon's Minefield

3arabawy

Sursock

Left Now

Le Poireau Rouge

Complex System of Pipes

Le Colonel Chabert [see archives]

K-Punk

Faithful to the Line

Jews Sans Frontieres

Institute for Conjunctural Research

The Proles

Infinite Thought

Critical Montages

A Gauche

Histologion

Wat Tyler

Ken McLeod

Unrepentant Marxist

John Molyneux

Rastî

Obsolete

Bureau of Counterpropaganda

Prisoner of Starvation

Kotaji

Through The Scary Door

Historical Materialism

1820

General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle

Fruits of our Labour

Left I on the News

Organized Rage

Another Green World

Climate and Capitalism

The View From Steeltown

Long Sunday

Anti-dialectics

Empire Watch [archives]

Killing Time [archives]

Ob Fusc [archives]

Apostate Windbag [archives]

Alphonse [archives]

Dead Men Left [dead, man left]

Bat [archives]

Bionic Octopus [archives]

Keeping the Rabble in Line [archives]

Cliffism [archives]

Antiwar

Antiwar.com

Antiwar.blog

Osama Saeed

Dahr Jamail

Angry Arab

Desert Peace

Abu Aardvark

Juan Cole

Baghdad Burning

Collective Lounge

Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation

Unfair Witness [archive]

Iraq Occupation & Resistance Report [archive]

Socialism

Socialist Workers Party

Socialist Aotearoa

Globalise Resistance

Red Pepper

Marxists

New Left Review

Socialist Review

Socialist Worker

World Socialist Website

Left Turn

Noam Chomsky

South Africa Keep Left

Monthly Review

Morning Star

Radical Philosophy

Blogger
blog comments powered by Disqus