Economy
The new Pericles: Marles, master of the Seas
Thucydides has Pericles, the great Athenian statesman and strategist, observe that “Mastery of the sea is no small matter”. The Defence Minister should have been mindful of Pericles’ words as he launched the Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet (ELSCF). Or he might have recalled Pericles’ caution that “I am far more afraid of our own Continue reading »
Australia’s India bet: Not a lay down misère yet
When do shared values become shared interests? Australia’s relations with India have accelerated exponentially. The nearly century-long pattern of discovery and rediscovery of India by the Australian polity is now history. Durable knots are being tied across the spectrum of political, economic, and social issues. No one-night stands anymore. It is all so reminiscent of Continue reading »
In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea – review
Jonathan White‘s In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea examines how changing political conceptions of the future have impacted democracy, arguing that contemporary challenges like economic slowdown and climate change have led to reactive politics and short-termism. Though the book proposes ways to revitalise democracy, Aveek Bhattacharya suggests we may need to seek beyond our political institutions for strategies to build a more open future.
You can read an interview with Jonathan White about the book here. On Monday 11 March at 6.30pm White will speak at an LSE panel event, The politics of the future – find details and register here.
In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea. Jonathan White. Profile Books. 2024.
In the Long Run: The Future as a Political Idea is a book about the history of the future, and what it means for the present. More precisely, it describes how the way people think about the future has evolved over time, and the impact of these changes on democracy. Jonathan White’s central argument is that while optimism for the future once helped build democracy, economic slowdown, climate change, new technology and geopolitical tension mean that “the future no longer seems its [democracy’s] friend”.
For democracy to function, White observes, it is critical that people believe an “open future” is possible: that there are alternatives to the status quo, that society can evolve in a range of different ways, and that the people can choose between them. One of the key defining characteristics of democracy – the peaceful handover of power – is premised on changeability of the future: election losers believe that they will get their chance to achieve their vision of society again.
For democracy to function, White observes, it is critical that people believe an ‘open future’ is possible
In the present, White says, it is harder to maintain that patience and faith. The future is regarded with fear and claustrophobia. At various points he describes the future, far from being open, as “closing in”. Catastrophe – societal decay, conflict, environmental collapse – feels hard to avert. Insofar as there are options, they involve deferring to technocrats. There is a “now or never” urgency about politics, and a fear that waiting your turn means leaving it too late because the other side will destroy everything.
Via a tour of historical political thinkers, White sketches the ideas of the future that make for the most vibrant democratic system. Political and social outcomes must seem open, but not in such a destabilising manner as to trigger counter-revolution from those attached to the present. A strand of utopianism can be energising but must be linked to near-term political tactics to be practicable. Efforts to limit uncertainty, to render the future predictable, through calculation and technocracy risk squeezing out the necessary imagination and mass participation of vibrant democracy. At the same time, chaotic impulsiveness and pure disregard for expertise risks descending into fascism. Trying to control the future by keeping it secret is likely to generate conspiracy theories and discontent. Consumerism individualises the future and means we no longer share in it – we move from valorising Victorian steam trains to wanting our own personal cars.
Our perpetual state of emergency, while creating unpredictability, produces reactive politics, designed mainly to return things to the way they were.
The conception of the future we have arrived at today is not, in White’s opinion, sufficiently conducive to democracy. Our perpetual state of emergency, while creating unpredictability, produces reactive politics, designed mainly to return things to the way they were. Short-termism dominates – most notably, through the election cycle, but even longer-term threats like climate change are tractable only by converting them to benchmarks and deadlines. Managerialism and secrecy dominate, empowering organisations like the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund and triggering impulsive populist backlashes.
White’s proposals for rebuilding a more positive conception of the future and revitalising democracy are somewhat surprising. He is sceptical of direct democracy – while more referendums might give ordinary citizens more chance to shape the future, they raise the stakes and perpetuate the “all-or-nothing” politics he thinks is so baleful. Small-scale councils are too small-scale to create significant change, citizens’ assemblies too short-lived to pursue a persistent vision.
White calls for ‘radical representative democracy’, with mass participation in the development of party policy and party members having greater opportunity to recall politicians who fail to deliver on those agreed goals.
Instead, he puts his chips on political parties as the crucibles of a more inclusive, compelling and hopeful vision of the future. He calls for “radical representative democracy”, with mass participation in the development of party policy and party members having greater opportunity to recall politicians who fail to deliver on those agreed goals. It’s an argument with echoes of Peter Mair’s Ruling the Void, which also claimed that the disengagement of ordinary members and politicians from their political parties had led to “the hollowing of Western democracy”.
White’s rebooted party system sounds good in theory, but invites scepticism about its practicality. His central assumption is that citizens’ disempowerment is the root cause of our current democratic malaise, and that the opportunity for greater influence will suffice to tempt enough people to give up their evenings and weekends to political causes. It is not encouraging that the existing parties that have done most to engage with mass movements and improve participation with things like online platforms – Podemos in Spain and the Five Star Movement in Italy – do not seem to have restored democratic confidence in their countries.
The Victorian capitalists who built the factories and railroads may not have been personally attractive, but they inspired progressives and socialists to dream about how their innovations could be used to benefit all.
White is oddly dismissive of the pockets of optimism that do exist outside the political system – most notably Silicon Valley, where ideas like “Effective accelerationism”, the view that technological progress is likely to obviate many of our deepest societal challenges, has taken root. For White, they display the wrong sort of optimism: too consumerist and individualistic, too inclined towards anti-system chaotic thinking, tendencies encapsulated in the figure of Elon Musk, presented as fascistoid, if not fascist. Setting aside whether that is a fair characterisation of Musk, the question it raises is why the confidence of tech companies seems so divorced from the sentiments of wider society. The Victorian capitalists who built the factories and railroads may not have been personally attractive, but they inspired progressives and socialists to dream about how their innovations could be used to benefit all. There are some – figures like Aaron Bastani on the far left and Derek Thompson on the centre left – that are trying to do something similar today, but White does not recognise them as such.
White assumes that the problems of democracy are endogenous: that they are caused by political institutions and must be resolved by them.
Most fundamentally, White assumes that the problems of democracy are endogenous: that they are caused by political institutions and must be resolved by them. But there are more straightforward explanations for the modern morosity. Stagnant economic growth, and the failure of new technologies to demonstrably improve living standards, would naturally be expected to undermine confidence that things will improve. The demographic shift to an older population in rich countries may also have contributed to a lack of vitality and enthusiasm, and a tendency to look back with nostalgia rather than forward with hope. Even among the young, we should not necessarily take perceptions at face value. Phenomena like “climate anxiety” seem to reflect anxiety at least as much as they reflect the climate, and as such will often be psychological, not just political in nature.
That’s not necessarily a comforting thought. Maybe technological abundance is around the corner, maybe the economy will turn around, maybe the mental health crisis will abate – whether by sheer luck or unusually effective action – and people will start to feel better about the future. But In the Long Run suggests that fixing democracy’s problems, renewing our faith in the open future, is a much bigger task than tweaking its institutions.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Ryan Rodrick Beiler on Shutterstock
French economy minister tells EU to raid €35 TRILLION from private savings to fund war
“35,000 billion euros lying dormant today in European bank accounts… is no longer acceptable” – Bruno le Maire, who said he was going to collapse Russian economy, now wants the money of millions of EU citizens
Bruno le Maire’s ‘rant’
Bruno le Maire, arch-centrist French president Emmanuel Macron’s economy and finance minister, said in 2022 that France and the EU was going to collapse the Russian economy. Now, with Russia’s economy outperforming both the EU and US, le Maire has decided that the EU doesn’t have enough cash reserves and that he wants to raid the bank accounts of European citizens to get access to what he says is 35 trillion euros lying ‘dormant’.
And he wants them, at least in part, to fund war-readiness.
As French observer Arnaud Bertrand has pointed out, le Maire wants to “mobilize all the savings of Europeans” by taking their savings into a ‘European savings product’ – but while le Maire says that it will be ‘voluntary’ for EU nations to enter the scheme, there is no mention of ordinary people having the same freedom of choice if their country does enter it. In a video on the topic, le Maire says:
I am at the Council of Ministers of Finance in Ghent, Belgium, and I just raised a fuss because the capital markets union is not progressing. What is the capital markets union? It’s the ability to mobilize all of Europeans’ savings – 35,000 billion euros – to finance the climate transition, fund our defence efforts, and invest in artificial intelligence.
Since things aren’t moving forward with all 27 members, I proposed that we move forward on a voluntary basis with a small number of member states to propose a European savings product in the coming months, to propose European supervision of capital markets to ensure that regulation works well, and therefore to raise several tens of billions of euros to finance our growth and prosperity.
Europe cannot economically weaken as it has been doing for several months because it does not have sufficient financial reserves. Europe cannot miss the climate turning point because it does not have sufficient financial reserves. Europe cannot miss the artificial intelligence turning point because it is unable to agree on this capital markets union and make Europeans’ savings work.
35,000 billion euros lying dormant today in European bank accounts instead of fostering Europe’s prosperity tomorrow, instead of financing artificial intelligence, instead of financing the climate transition, is no longer acceptable. That’s the gist of my rant this morning in Ghent.
Deducing, probably correctly, that ‘defence’ really means the Ukrainian military, Betrand called le Maire’s plan:
immensely ironical that mister “I’ll collapse Russia’s economy” comes back to us 2 years afterwards, telling us “Europe cannot economically weaken as it has been doing for several months”, we need to take your savings… When Russia’s economy, far from collapsing, has been growing faster than all European countries. All this in part to “fund our defense efforts”, likely a code for “send it to Ukraine”, the most corrupt country on the continent currently fighting an endless money pit war that it has no chance of winning. Pure madness.
Europe and NATO seem increasingly determined to have war, with Sweden reintroducing conscription, other countries discussing it, the UK and EU banging the drum about Russia, whitewashing Ukrainian nazis and misrepresenting military goals, and many of them seemingly ready to conscript the life savings of civilians in order to fund endless conflict.
If only the same resolve was directed toward the actions needed to stop the actual genocidal war being perpetrated by Israel on the civilians of Gaza as there is to fanning the flames of war in Europe.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
One last chance for the low paid to receive tax equity
21 days after the Federal Government did an about-face on its earlier promise to maintain the previously legislated income tax regime, it has secured passage through the House of Representatives of major changes to Australia’s income tax legislation. But speed and the evident equity in the major part of those changes, principally directed at “middle Continue reading »
A welcome new approach to economics
“The Alternative: How to build a just economy” by American author, Nick Romeo, that has been published by Basic Books UK in recent weeks, is a welcome arrival to a human world in crisis. The Professor of Economics at the University of London, Ha-Joon Chang, says of the book “TINA (There is No Alternative)” has Continue reading »
As a new world war rages, an anxious China walks softly
A new world war is underway. For those living in developed countries, where gruesome battles remain mere headlines, it may not feel like the earth is burning, but in 2022 a total of 180 military conflicts (defined as resulting in 25 battle-deaths or more in that year) occurred worldwide. The final statistics for 2023 compiled Continue reading »
Stop Australian charitable donations to the Settler Movement in the Occupied Territories
Despite the strong words being used by Anthony Albanese in conjunction with the Canadian and NZ governments to indicate Australia’s deep concern against a “devastating” and “catastrophic” ground offensive in Rafah in Gaza, or the ongoing proceedings in the International Court of Justice, it is high time that Australia actually went beyond words, and start Continue reading »
The future of tax reform
There are recurrent calls for tax reform, but it is typically too difficult to achieve a consensus. However, the necessary action to reduce carbon emissions by introducing a tax on carbon emissions could result in most people being better off and thus achieve broad support. To coin a phrase: just like galahs in a pet Continue reading »
Bewilderingly unsophisticated: ASPI deputy director fires up China threat megaphone
Alex Bristow’s recent piece on China (“Don’t sidestep the China problem in public debate on defence”, Australian Financial Review, 14 February) demonstrates the extent to which the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has become a cheerleader for the US military-industrial complex. In a piece published by the Australian Financial Review on 14 February and reproduced on Continue reading »