When Clement Met Margaret – the unholy alliance of the 1950s and the 1980s

It’s the worst of both worlds. A glance at 20^th century economic history indicates that the noxious right-wing consensus currently ruling the roost in this country is intent on the nightmarish combination of post-WW2 military Keynesianism (state spending on arms manufacturers) with 1920s/1980s austerity which shuffles the tax burden onto ordinary people and lets the rich get away with murder.

In order to appease Trump, Sir Kier Starmer has promised to spend an extra £32 billion a year on defence (taking spending on weapons to at least 3.5% of GDP) ostensibly on the absurd notion of protecting the country from Vladimir Putin menacing British streets. And absent any willingness to tax the billionaires, this can only come from renewed austerity and increased taxation on most people.

The image of post-war decades in this country (and Europe) is bathed in the sepia-tinted light of the birth of welfare states and health services. Out of the rubble of World War Two, Britain created the National Health Service and instituted a mass council house building programme, two things that clearly cost a lot of money. This can be designated social Keynesianism (state spending that benefits people).

However, this memory is selective. At the same time, after falling immediately after the Second World War, military spending hit 11.2% of GDP around the time of the Korean War in the early ’50s. It subsequently dropped but still remained comparatively high, holding steady at over 5% of the GDP in the 1970s.  This can be designated military Keynesianism (state spending on weapons). Hitler and later Ronald Reagan were quite taken with the concept.

Bear in mind that 5% of GDP is what Trump and Nato want military spending to be.

In truth, the post-war years saw the creation of both a welfare and a warfare state. “After the Second World War, Britons built not only a new Jerusalem but a new Sparta,” writes historian David Edgerton in The Rise and Fall of the British Nation. “Though no longer one of the greatest powers, in the 1950s the United Kingdom was militarized to an unprecedented peacetime degree.”

Into the 1960s and ’70s, he notes, the “warfare state” consumed more than the health or education budget.

Now we are told, in the midst of what is undeniably a much richer country, that we must choose warfare over welfare. Not we have a genuine welfare state nowadays anyway. After years of ever greater conditionality rules being attached to it, it is more properly classed a punishment state.

But what is interesting about the post-war years is not only that a balancing act between welfare and warfare was achieved but that it was done without imposing unbearable levels of taxation on ordinary people. The lower middle class enjoyed an effective tax rate far lower than today (before the increase in military spending hits), whilst large and essential ‘consumer’ items, such as houses, were much more affordable.

How was this possible, let alone actualised? The answer lies in three decades of robust economic growth (the best in the history of capitalism) which permitted rising public spending – part of which was diverted to military purposes – and the paying off of war debts. But this package, benign in certain respects, was enabled by much heavier taxation of the wealthy, encapsulated in the Beatles’ song ‘Taxman’, an embittered two and half minute whinge about paying 92.6% supertax. In fairness to its author, George Harrison objected to paying tax so governments could find new ways to bomb people and in that he was, at least partially, justified.

Socially speaking, however, the post-war years were a conscious repudiation of the policies of the 1920s and ’30s. As shown by Clara Mattei in The Capital Order in many countries, Britain and Italy for example, this involved swingeing cuts to public spending (that had risen in the aftermath of World War One), coupled with reducing direct taxation on the rich and increasing indirect taxation of consumption, especially duties on working class pleasures such as tobacco, beer and spirits. In Britain corporation tax, only created in 1920, was abolished four years later and would only return after 1945.

By then this economic cocktail was thoroughly discredited. It had contributed to and exacerbated the economic depression of the 1930s, laying the foundations for the worst conflict in human history, the Second World War.

But the dawn of the 1980s was long enough for amnesia to have set in. Thatcher in Britain and Reagan in America set about rehabilitating the economic prescriptions of the 1920s. Public spending was held down, mass privatisation inaugurated, and taxation precepts turned upside down. Direct, progressive, taxes on the rich were slashed while consumption taxes – regressive because everyone pays the same – were hiked. For example, corporation tax was 51% in 1981 and it is now at less than half that level (and recently has been even lower). VAT has gone in the opposite direction. It stood at 8% in 1979 and has since nearly trebled.

There is admittedly one significant difference. Whereas the austerity mongers of the 1920s were unconcerned about the effects of their policies on mass consumption, since the 1980s our political overlords have been far less complacent. A four-decades long house price boom, the huge expansion of personal debt, frequently low interest rates, and the introduction of tax credits have attempted to compensate for the fact that wages have not risen as they did in the post-war decades and in recent years have flatlined.

Some have called this privatised Keynesianism – a third kind of economic policy named after someone who died in 1946.

But the point is that, in conspicuous contrast to their predecessors of the 1920s, Thatcherism and Reaganism had the necessary stickiness. They stayed around. So much so that the current ‘Labour’ government in Britain is, in essential respects, Thatcherite. It is committed to deregulation, not increasing tax on the wealthy and keeping utilities like water and electricity in private hands. Any similarity to the Clement Attlee government of 1945-51 is purely rhetorical.

Except, though, in one respect. It is intent on repeating the trick of post-war military Keynesianism which, in addition to the creation of the NHS and nationalisation, the Attlee government eventually succumbed to, especially with Britain’s involvement in the Korean war in 1950. In response to this, defence spending doubled.

The post-war decision to increase weapons spending was not painless. It involved introducing charges for some NHS services which sparked a bitter controversy and much soul-searching about the meaning of democratic socialism.  But the conversion happened without sacrificing the core of the post-war settlement. The Conservatives – in power from 1951 – continued the huge council house building programme and the welfare state was expanded in the 1960s and ’70s.  Government policies tended towards increasing equality.

However, that was then. Thanks to the incredible shelf-life of Thatcherism, we don’t live in the same country anymore. As a result, something has to give – if you want to spend an extra £32 billion on the military, the money will have to be re-allocated from elsewhere and augmented from increasing taxation even more on moderate earners.

This process is already in the works.  In addition to slashing support for new claimants for disability benefit, the government is merging the Work Capability Assessment (for Universal Credit) into the assessment for Personal Independence Payments.  It is estimated that over 600,000 chronically ill and disabled people will lose their means of support as a result.

Plans to raise the state pension age to 70 are cut from the same cloth.

As socialist economist Michael Burke has said, “the funding for the war drive can only be generated by much harsher austerity, harsher even than in 2010.”

More and more, the decades following World War Two appear a unique aberration in the history of capitalism, precipitated by a uniquely destructive conflagration that was the deadliest in history.

Rather the norm is austerity, low taxation of the rich and corporations, unending hostility towards trade unions, and military aggressiveness.

Politically we are reverting to type too. The Second World War alliance against Nazism of a ‘communist’ country and western capitalist states only came about as a last resort after the latter had exhausted all other possibilities. Previously, and for years, British and French elites had wanted to enlist the Nazis as a “bulwark against Communism”, giving them a “free hand” to attack the Soviet Union. Even after the outbreak of the Second World War (during the seven-month “phoney war”), Britain and France still plotted an attack on the Soviets.

The preference for the far right has clear echoes today. Despite growing public disquiet at the genocide, the British government is still supporting the Fascist Israeli government and the West finds de facto support to Fascist thugs in Ukraine aligns with its geopolitical ambitions.

Is there an alternative to this witches’ brew? I want to explore those possibilities in a later post.

Rightification: A Theory

 

In May, in the midst of the concerted effort to deny disabled people who can’t dress themselves any means of support, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall gave a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of Thatcherite Labour.

The cuts, were “crucial”, Kendall averred, “to fighting the rise in populist politics”

They really believe that by forcing through right-wing, necrophile Thatcherite policies they are holding the fort against Trump-esque barbarians when, in fact, they are causing not so much a drift to the Right as a raging stampede.

The disability cuts Labour wanted to implement are a perfect example. The ‘victory’ of PIP cuts being postponed (not shelved, they still might come back in a different form) hides the fact that the other major aspect of the cuts – reducing the weekly benefit of new claimants in the most severe Limited Capacity for Work-Related Activity group by nearly £50 a week from next year – was passed into law.

The cut is greater than the £30 a week one introduced by the Tories in 2016. It’s an interesting theory that you defeat the right by becoming more right-wing that it is.

Or rather was. Because caving in to the slavering dogs just whets their appetite. The proudly Thatcherite Centre for Policy Studies says Labour “must go further”, while Tory leader Kemi Badenoch warns that the “benefits bill” is a “ticking time bomb” which could “collapse the economy”.

Reform UK, meanwhile, wants to force 1 million plus people back into work, declaring that it is the party of “workers and strivers, not shirkers and skivers” (yes it actually rhymes, it sounds like some nightmarish poem written by a 70-year-old bloke with too much time on his hands).

But the truly scary thing that, to Labour’s Machiavellian strategists like Morgan McSweeney, this is a sign that everything is working perfectly. At the next election, Labour will claim it alone is sensible and moderate, while the alternatives send a shudder down the spine. I’m sure some will be seduced by this ploy (but not enough as Labour has alienated so many people that it is clearly toast).

By its action and inactions, and bovine right-wing impulses, Labour is causing this right-wing flood to happen.

Surely there is no-one more slavishly pro-Israel than this Labour government? Labour has increased weapons sales to Israel before exempting the F35 bomber from its cosmetic restrictions. It refuses to call the worst genocide of the century a genocide. It still undertakes (now privatised) daily spy flights over Gaza from an RAF base in Cyprus and places pensioners who oppose the mass killing under house arrest.

But meet Kemi Badenoch, who won’t utter a word of criticism of Israel, thinks the country is fighting “a proxy war on behalf of the UK” and has appointed as shadow foreign secretary a woman who believes UK aid should go to the Israeli Defence [sic] Force.

Or say hello to Nigel Farage who finds the Netanyahu/Trump Gaza Riveira plan for ethnic cleansing “appealing”, and frets that the UK is  not an ally of Israel anymore.

Rachel Reeves, absurdly, wants to deregulate finance again, allowing people to borrow for mortgages at more than four and a half times their income. This is despite the fact that the 2008 financial crisis was precipitated by exactly this kind of permissive environment (it’s easy to forget that we had our own home-grown banking crisis in 2007 caused by Gordon Brown’s light touch regulation before the American one spread across the globe the following year).

But who is going to oppose this desperation? Probably not Kemi Badenoch who regards Argentina’s chainsaw wielding ‘anarcho-capitalist’ President Javier Milei as the template for her imaginary government.

Nor Nigel Farage, the former stockbroker who wants to “keep the flame of Thatcherism alive” by reducing corporation tax to 15%.

Starmer is fruitlessly aping Reform UK’s rhetoric, justifying and amplifying its pseudo-fascist ‘solutions’ while still being markedly less popular with its supporters than his unmentionable socialist predecessor.

But when not emboldening Farage, Sir Kier is channelling the blessed Margaret by promoting the nightmare possibility of a “limited” nuclear war in Europe and appeasing Trump by promising to spend an extra £32 billion (!) every year on weapons, thus ensuring even harsher austerity than that of Cameron/Osborne.

The reaction from the opposition is not to advise caution but to chide that he is not “going far enough”, a phrase I predict we will hear with tiresome regularity in the run up to the next general election.

Reform UK, meanwhile, dreams of an  Musk-style DOGE in every council despite local government, post 2010, bearing the brunt of “the biggest and most sustained cuts in public spending since World War II”.

In their all-encompassing obsession with defeating the Left, the Labour party are fomenting, literally and figuratively, a right-wing arms race that will lead to disaster.

The irony is that I believe they believe that they will ultimately emerge victorious from this horror. The even greater irony is that the person they hate for nearly destroying ‘their’ party, succeeded by his mere presence is shifting the country slightly to the Left, while they – in government and on the back of a huge Parliamentary majority – are dragging it to the extreme Right even though most of its inhabitants don’t want to go there.

The new Left party cannot come soon enough.

André Gorz and the importance of refusing work

Twenty years ago the French philosopher André Gorz warned of the crucial difference between a basic income that enabled its recipients to refuse work and one designed to prompt them to take any on offer.

At a time when basic income advocates were a novelty, Gorz foresaw the dangers ‘inherent in demanding continuous income for discontinuous work’. Basic income was, according to one contemporary conservative advocate, not an end in itself, but the means for everyone to ‘fit themselves into this new system’.

The idea, said Gorz, was ‘to enable employment to become intermittent, and [it] may even encourage such intermittent employment’.

But a ‘sufficient’ unconditional basic income had precisely the opposite logic. “The aim,” he wrote in 1997’s Reclaiming Work, “is not to force the recipients to accept any kind of work on any terms whatsoever, but to free them from the constraints of the labour market. The basic social income must enable them to refuse work [my italics] and reject ‘inhuman’ working conditions.”

Far from encouraging work and entrepreneurship, Gorz wanted a basic income, in line with the ideas of libertarian communists and socialists of past eras, to lead to ‘less employment and less selling of labour and services’. He looked forward to the ‘elimination of work as the dominant form of activity’ and its replacement by myriad forms of ‘personal activity’.

In the late ‘90s, few policy-makers paid serious attention to proposals for a basic income. Now, by contrast, basic income pilots are springing up like mushrooms after a cloudburst. Experiments are planned, or are in progress, in Finland, Canada, the Netherlands and Scotland.  The kind of basic income they embody, however, is closer to Gorz’s nightmare than his dream of liberation.

Intermittent employment, through zero hours contracts, extreme part-time work, freelancing and the burgeoning gig economy, was only just emerging into the sunlight in the 1990s. But now it is an established fact of life for millions of people. And all the basic income pilots, without exception, take intermittent employment as a given, even a desideratum. Basic income, in other words, becomes a means for people to ‘fit themselves into this new system’.

In Finland, the centre-right government hopes the basic income pilot will help participants ‘take short-term jobs’ and ‘encourage people to seek and accept work’. The BI pilot in Ontario, Canada, though set at a more for generous level than in Finland, aims to ‘strengthen the incentive to work’.  In the Dutch city of Utrecht, the ruling socially liberal D66 party, which has initiated a BI experiment directed solely at the unemployed, is committed to ‘strengthening the economy for entrepreneurs, be they big multinationals or small-scale freelancers.

This all suggests that these basic income pilots, besides being more humane that punitive welfare systems, will be good for the economy. But ‘sufficient’, Gorz-style basic income, aimed at facilitating the refusal rather than the acceptance of work, while sounding utopian, may in fact be more economically beneficial. This is because it works to a counter western societies’ now permanent over-supply of labour.

A basic income that is i) substantial and ii) paid to everyone, not just the unemployed and the poor would, according to one article on radical implications of basic income, ‘simultaneously push up the wage rate for unattractive, unrewarding (which no one is now forced to accept in order to survive) and bring down the average wage rate for attractive, intrinsically rewarding work (because fundamental needs are covered anyway)’.

Or, as one of the organisers of the Swiss group, Generation Basic Income (which advocates a monthly ‘basic income max’ of nearly £2,000 a month), puts it: ‘Income from labour will be renegotiated ….Good work that people like to do, will be cheaper. Poor work that people do not like to do, will be better paid, because no-one can be blackmailed with their existence to do it.’

Many basic income advocates stress the inexorability of automation as demonstrating a ‘like it or not’ justification of an unconditional income. But so-called advanced economies, certainly the UK, are de-industrialised without being fully automated. In many ways, they are running on the easy availability of abundant cheap labour. There are now 20,000 hand car washes in Britain, while the automated version – rollover car wash machines – have halved in number in a decade.  This is reverse automation.

 A substantial basic income, that enabled the refusal of work, could turn off the labour tap and spur automation in a way that ‘incentivising employment’ basic income won’t.

In short we don’t need to create more low paid work but this is just what the intermittent employment model of basic income is predicated upon doing. A ubiquitous justification of this model is that it gives the recipients the confidence to start their own business because they won’t face starvation if they fail. It’s hard to argue with the logic except that the last thing we need is more small businesses. Self-employment in the UK, in the most un-basic income conditions imaginable, has already increased by 26% in the last ten years, and now encompasses 15% of the workforce. Simultaneously, since 2008, the income of the self-employed has dropped by a quarter.

The reason is that the ranks of the self-employed have been boosted by a legion of small-scale service businesses – cleaners, gardeners, dog walkers, website designers, personal trainers, nutritionists – that are often barely able to keep their head above water financially. Introducing an insufficient basic income would boost the number of these services immensely and – because they would be many more freelance dog walkers for busy dog owners to choose from – would water down self-employed income even more.

Ventures like Task Rabbit, which matches freelance contractors with people seeking help with tasks like moving or cleaning, have spread across the US and are now growing in the UK. According to the chief executive of one ‘crowdworking’ US company, technology now enables employers to recruit people for ten minute tasks, pay them a tiny amount of money and then ‘get rid of them when you don’t need them anymore’. This is as good a description of a capitalist dystopia as I can find, and it’s an economy that would be massively emboldened by the guilt erasing incentivising employment model of basic income.

The above may seem churlish in the context of a welfare state that has morphed into a punishment state, and relishes denying income to the sick and disabled, forcing them to beg at food banks. Compared to this, unconditional income is little short of an epiphany. But when I think of the future in the light of a basic income predicated on incentivising work, I can’t help but envisage millions of self-employed task bunnies meekly serving the myriad whims of the elite. Labour will have never been so cheap or so abundant. No-one will starve but everyone will be exploited.