Title this essay ‘The Political Otherness of Jeremy Corbyn’: the Old/New Party Line of the apologists for Neo-Liberalism/Austerity and it’s successor Corporatism:
‘ He is firmly against Europe’s planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the United States.’
The Oxbridgers who write,edit and publish The Economist either were convinced Neo-Liberals in their comparative youth, or ingested it’s dogmas with their mother’s milk. These ideologues have turned away from the watershed of Neo-Liberalism’s failure and the rise of both Left and Right in response to those failed dogmas.
The Political Center they unstintingly praise , Blair and his epigones, New Labour, and Thatcher’s grandchildren- to speak metaphorically unlike the bodhisattva they have not left the palace gates!
As President Obama has clearly demonstrated, with his alliance with the Republicans, to pass the TPA and TPP, both classified as State Secrets, Neo-Liberalism was just the introductory phase of a Corporatist political agenda. The EU is not about ‘Freedom’ and ‘Democracy’ but about the rise of a state run by technocrats in the interests of Muli-National Corporations. And the Banks/Investment Houses who service and profit from the free reign of The Market, without regard for ‘The West’ and it’s long history of republican values, practices and institutions.
Mr. Corbyn understands the myriad failures of that pernicious Neo-Liberalism, yet the question remains can he engage in an act of Restoration of the Labour Party to it’s tradition of Democratic Socialism? Or will the forces of political reaction, like the Economist and it’s Tory and New Labour allies, smother it to death in it’s infancy? The question remains active even in the face of the barrage of Anti-Corbyn propaganda. One thing is clear, the struggle against Neo-Liberalism/Corporatism will be a trans-generational project : Sixty years or more!
My reply to Pax Romana:
Thank you for your comment. The ‘Market’ in the mythology constructed by Hayek is the only real, not to speak of, essential form of knowledge.His defense of that epistemology is one of the cornerstones of his thought, if not his singular contribution to Neo-Liberal dogma. The whole of your reply is just a restatement of Hayek’s arguments for the Free Market dogmas, even though you may be unaware of that fact.
Let me recommend this issue of Critical Review titled Hayek: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly:
This set of essays are informative and well worth your time.
‘On the subject of TTIP, Obama is working with some democrats and some republicans- not, by any means, either of the party’s congressional leaderships. Also, they aren’t state secrets- you can just type the terms into google and you’ll get accurate results.’
In America any congressperson could look at and read the TPA and the TPP, no one was allowed, under legal penalty: no taking notes,and no disusiing what you had read with anyone.Both these ‘Laws’ are under seal for five years. Those are the facts,dispute them though you will!
‘WikiLeaks issues call for $100,000 bounty on monster trade treaty’
Capitalism in the time of Adam Smith may have been
emancipatory, in the face of British feudalism, but we now live under an ever tightening corporate political/economic power: that seeks in these ‘Trade Agreements’ sovereign power over the very idea and practice of republicanism.
My second reply to PaxRomana:
Thank you for your comment. Your anti-intellecualism shows itself in your first sentence. As if The Free Market were almost analogous to a State of Nature, and that Hayek is a political/economic irrelevance, rather than one of the chief propagandists in the 20th and 21st Century: that put the Free Market dogmas front and center. Mrs. Thatcher used to pass out copies like it was a party favor! Perhaps this old Henry Ford quote is appropriate: ‘History is bunk’!
You then studiously avoid the fact that the TPA and TPP are classified documents i.e. State Secrets with an appeal to ’29 democratically elected bodies.’ As if the fact that these ‘bodies’ are not being challenged politically from both ‘Left’ by Mr. Corbyn and from the ‘Right’by Mr. Farage to limit the argument to Britain. But the phenomenon is both European and American. Your argument collapses from just from the anecdotal ‘evidence’ found in this publication, expressed as political hysterics about the political nihilism of Mr. Corbyn.
You end with more shopworn cliches about the blessings of a Capitalist Economy; you extemporize on that old saw ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’. Call this an appeal to the Capitalist Party Line. In America the only real ‘growth’ experienced in our economy is in low paying Service Sector jobs. In sum, your argument embraces the anti-intellectal, an appeal to the wisdom of ’29 democratically elected bodies.’:Capitalist apologetics. And the clear avoidance of the question that the TPA and TPP are in sum an attack, indeed a complete subversion, on the republican tradition that has been foundational to the very existence of the Capitalist Mythology you celebrate.
My reply to Ras Thurlo:
Thank you for your comment. One could ask the question: where have you been since the Economic collapse of 2008? Neo-Liberalism followed by Austerity and then the Economic Doldrums: the lingering malaise that is the watershed of failure!
Or the fact that the New Deal is still alive and well, although subject to the repeated attacks from Nihilist Republicans, and their oft repeated riffs on welfare queens or the more sophisticated Randian notion of the producers and the drones, or Mitt Romney’s 47%. George Romney actually produced a quality product, yet his son is a Vulture Capitalist.
The myth that were soft,spoiled and incapable of decisive economic action, you and your political/economic allies need to set the rest of us straight. Call you and yours Economic Caudillos, or more pointedly Peronists.
Look at the dismal Capitalist Present, that produces noting but profits for itself, without the pretense of ‘civic obligation’. Call it Casino Capitalism as others have done. Think Jamie Dimon,Lloyd Blankfein ( Were doing Gods work.)or of Goldman Sachs?