Corbyn's first election gave Labour a huge electoral boost, with an economically left-wing manifesto. Brexit was his downfall imo, opposed to a rejection of his socialist outlook. Starmer, has moved to the centre, but he performed only marginally better than Corbyn at his worst - in terms of percentage of votes, and did so within the context of a strong anti-Tory sentiment amongst the electorate.
I know it was just a passing remark, but I am slightly puzzled by your claim about the Frankfurt School thinkers, namely that they failed to anticipate the left’s subsumption into the prevailing economic substructure (viz, a “dynamic, market-based system”). Herbert Marcuse did anticipate it, and even wrote One-Dimensional Man to explain how and why the transition from top-down state capitalism to a seemingly liquid and disorganised one is taking place. His analysis, in my view, has aged extremely well.
One of Marcuse’s most important points in ODM is that capitalism mitigates resistance either through the forced unification of opposites or the forced hypostatisation of essences which are not opposites at all. I know that sounds like a ‘word salad’, but he is essentially making the same point that Adam Curtis makes about Vladislav Surkov: through the act of simultaneously spinning the propaganda machine and exposing the elements of the machine itself, truth evolves into whatever the spinner simply posits. In other words, force alone becomes the sole basis of epistemic justification because the conditions for identifying ‘true’ from ‘false’ are no longer visible. The persisting forms of “opposition” subsequently assume the form of those which transmit an aesthetic of ‘resistance’ or ‘liberation’ while preserving the core structural elements of the prevailing ‘capitalist’ hegemony, which protect the conditions for the endless production of surplus value and the migration of the generated capital.
The consumer society and the openly celebrated culture of mass consumption, in Marcuse’s view, are two products of this proces,s which redirect the libidinal energy of those on the receiving end of the class structure in a way that prevents them from developing into a political threat. Thus, contrary to the McCarthyite narrative (embraced by Peterson, Hicks and Lindsay) that involves viewing the cultural fetishisation of sex in the post-war period as a product of a Soviet-sponsored attempt to export communism to the free world, Marcuse singles out these very developments as cultural product designed to “contain” the historical vitality of the proletariat (he even proceeds to use the word “containment”). This doesn’t amount to a defence of sexual conservatism. However, Marcuse does appear to be open to the possibility of the sexual revolution serving a hidden ideological purpose.
More radical than this, however, is what Marcuse sees as the purpose of the welfare state. He goes as far as saying that it provides the pretext for the total managerialisation of society, creating a scenario where it would be impossible for any forms of particularity to escape or coexist within the system. All forms of genuine opposition would be thwarted by the administrative and bureaucratic processes that are designed to annul any anomaly; the expansion of public services, healthcare, etc., thus only alleviates the hardship engendered by capitalism insofar as it increases our dependence on what it provides. As such, initiatives such as ESG, DEI, and what we so often describe as “woke capitalism” and “modern social democracy” arguably confirm the lengths that capitalism is willing to go to uphold the economic substructure; it will find a way to masquerade as communism or change the definition of communism itself if it has to (to that end, it has undoubtedly succeeded).
With all of the above in mind, I believe it is a mistake to interpret Tony Blair and New Labour as having departed from the neoliberal framework; there are good reasons for thinking that Margaret Thatcher was serious when she referred to Tony Blair as her "greatest achievement".
David Harvey offers a pretty accurate definition of what neoliberalism is: the forced creation of markets wherever there isn’t one already. Ideologically speaking, there is only really one major policy difference between Blair and Thatcher, and that was the choice to incorporate the state into the process of market creation (in some cases, Blair went further than Thatcher with the privatisation of public services, as can be observed in the now infamous PPI schemes). Blair’s renewal of Labour’s commitment to the welfare state, rather than being in virtue of egalitarian ends or party tradition, could equally be interpreted as a slightly more targeted extension of the “safety net” as it functioned under Thatcher, which would have been perfectly appropriate when you consider the power of the market forces that the UK was being opened up to.
This leads us nicely into the immigration question. Yes, it is not untrue that the overwhelming majority of Blair’s cabinet invested positively in the idea of reshaping Britain along the lines of cosmopolitan pluralism. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that, like many other Fukuyama-adjacent “end of history” theorists at the time, they were naive enough to believe that any tensions between the parent population and the new arrivals would be precipitated by economics. When the “rub the right’s nose in diversity” remark was made, I don’t think the pioneers of this new, ‘civic’ Britain genuinely believed it would engender the cultural tensions that it has. That said, they did go to extraordinary lengths to gloss over their mistakes by repeating the supposedly infinite benefits of immigration and publicly castigating anyone speaking ill of the process to the extent that uttering pro-immigration sentiments evolved into a performative social exercise for the elites to indulge in. Ultimately, however, the sentiment is a post-hoc rationalisation of the government’s ambition to deregulate the labour market for economic gain and align the UK with the structural changes already being made in the European Union.
Thus, in summary, I don’t think it’s accurate to regard Blair, Cameron or even Starmer as having departed from neoliberalism: it never ended in the first place. Capital, ultimately, just doesn’t like being bogged down by ‘reactionary’ fetters like family, community and national identity; it does whatever it has to annul restrictions on its mobility. Compassionate but homogenised internationalism is just its latest stopgap created out of the practical need to fragment the ‘based’ left and keep the right fixated on the same trojan horses.
Ultimately (in my veiw) Liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction.
Fascinating analysis Keith. Thanks for everything you do.
May just mention a good book I'm halfway through, called 'Against Liberalism' by Alain de Benoist.
The only alternative is localism which is the future of humanity as late modernity destroys birth rates
Can you elaborate on this?
I call it Globabylon. It's main and most important characteristic is it doesn't care if the nation is destroyed.
Corbyn's first election gave Labour a huge electoral boost, with an economically left-wing manifesto. Brexit was his downfall imo, opposed to a rejection of his socialist outlook. Starmer, has moved to the centre, but he performed only marginally better than Corbyn at his worst - in terms of percentage of votes, and did so within the context of a strong anti-Tory sentiment amongst the electorate.
Ultimately (in my veiw) Liberalism sows the seeds of its own destruction.
Fascinating analysis Keith. Thanks for everything you do.
May just mention a good book I'm halfway through, called 'Against Liberalism' by Alain de Benoist.
The Social Left does have a weakness though. It's not an Invincible Ideology. Right now its being eroded every day.
I know it was just a passing remark, but I am slightly puzzled by your claim about the Frankfurt School thinkers, namely that they failed to anticipate the left’s subsumption into the prevailing economic substructure (viz, a “dynamic, market-based system”). Herbert Marcuse did anticipate it, and even wrote One-Dimensional Man to explain how and why the transition from top-down state capitalism to a seemingly liquid and disorganised one is taking place. His analysis, in my view, has aged extremely well.
One of Marcuse’s most important points in ODM is that capitalism mitigates resistance either through the forced unification of opposites or the forced hypostatisation of essences which are not opposites at all. I know that sounds like a ‘word salad’, but he is essentially making the same point that Adam Curtis makes about Vladislav Surkov: through the act of simultaneously spinning the propaganda machine and exposing the elements of the machine itself, truth evolves into whatever the spinner simply posits. In other words, force alone becomes the sole basis of epistemic justification because the conditions for identifying ‘true’ from ‘false’ are no longer visible. The persisting forms of “opposition” subsequently assume the form of those which transmit an aesthetic of ‘resistance’ or ‘liberation’ while preserving the core structural elements of the prevailing ‘capitalist’ hegemony, which protect the conditions for the endless production of surplus value and the migration of the generated capital.
The consumer society and the openly celebrated culture of mass consumption, in Marcuse’s view, are two products of this proces,s which redirect the libidinal energy of those on the receiving end of the class structure in a way that prevents them from developing into a political threat. Thus, contrary to the McCarthyite narrative (embraced by Peterson, Hicks and Lindsay) that involves viewing the cultural fetishisation of sex in the post-war period as a product of a Soviet-sponsored attempt to export communism to the free world, Marcuse singles out these very developments as cultural product designed to “contain” the historical vitality of the proletariat (he even proceeds to use the word “containment”). This doesn’t amount to a defence of sexual conservatism. However, Marcuse does appear to be open to the possibility of the sexual revolution serving a hidden ideological purpose.
More radical than this, however, is what Marcuse sees as the purpose of the welfare state. He goes as far as saying that it provides the pretext for the total managerialisation of society, creating a scenario where it would be impossible for any forms of particularity to escape or coexist within the system. All forms of genuine opposition would be thwarted by the administrative and bureaucratic processes that are designed to annul any anomaly; the expansion of public services, healthcare, etc., thus only alleviates the hardship engendered by capitalism insofar as it increases our dependence on what it provides. As such, initiatives such as ESG, DEI, and what we so often describe as “woke capitalism” and “modern social democracy” arguably confirm the lengths that capitalism is willing to go to uphold the economic substructure; it will find a way to masquerade as communism or change the definition of communism itself if it has to (to that end, it has undoubtedly succeeded).
With all of the above in mind, I believe it is a mistake to interpret Tony Blair and New Labour as having departed from the neoliberal framework; there are good reasons for thinking that Margaret Thatcher was serious when she referred to Tony Blair as her "greatest achievement".
David Harvey offers a pretty accurate definition of what neoliberalism is: the forced creation of markets wherever there isn’t one already. Ideologically speaking, there is only really one major policy difference between Blair and Thatcher, and that was the choice to incorporate the state into the process of market creation (in some cases, Blair went further than Thatcher with the privatisation of public services, as can be observed in the now infamous PPI schemes). Blair’s renewal of Labour’s commitment to the welfare state, rather than being in virtue of egalitarian ends or party tradition, could equally be interpreted as a slightly more targeted extension of the “safety net” as it functioned under Thatcher, which would have been perfectly appropriate when you consider the power of the market forces that the UK was being opened up to.
This leads us nicely into the immigration question. Yes, it is not untrue that the overwhelming majority of Blair’s cabinet invested positively in the idea of reshaping Britain along the lines of cosmopolitan pluralism. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that, like many other Fukuyama-adjacent “end of history” theorists at the time, they were naive enough to believe that any tensions between the parent population and the new arrivals would be precipitated by economics. When the “rub the right’s nose in diversity” remark was made, I don’t think the pioneers of this new, ‘civic’ Britain genuinely believed it would engender the cultural tensions that it has. That said, they did go to extraordinary lengths to gloss over their mistakes by repeating the supposedly infinite benefits of immigration and publicly castigating anyone speaking ill of the process to the extent that uttering pro-immigration sentiments evolved into a performative social exercise for the elites to indulge in. Ultimately, however, the sentiment is a post-hoc rationalisation of the government’s ambition to deregulate the labour market for economic gain and align the UK with the structural changes already being made in the European Union.
Thus, in summary, I don’t think it’s accurate to regard Blair, Cameron or even Starmer as having departed from neoliberalism: it never ended in the first place. Capital, ultimately, just doesn’t like being bogged down by ‘reactionary’ fetters like family, community and national identity; it does whatever it has to annul restrictions on its mobility. Compassionate but homogenised internationalism is just its latest stopgap created out of the practical need to fragment the ‘based’ left and keep the right fixated on the same trojan horses.
Question how do we Destroy this Powerful Ideology and Wipe from Human Memory?
https://substack.com/@bruce1701/note/c-129795858?r=5v3nzq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action