Tag Archives: Liberal Democracy

Contemporary Britain, a country dominated by Nietzsche’s untermensch (under men)

Nietzsche hated democracy because it makes possible the rule of the common man and the suppression of the superman. A term that Nietzsche uses to describe the common man is untermensch or underman, a term which was open to misunderstanding and abuse. What he meant by the untermensch was a man who lacked the potential to live the life of a ubermensch or superman. What was never understood was that for Nietzsche the distinction was based on intellect and character, not power or physical strength. Originally he named the saint, artist and philosopher as his supermen. Even his dislike of Christianity as the religion of slaves did not stop him admiring Christ as a possible superman. He admired Christ as a founder of a religion but despised Christians for slavishly following the beliefs of another. What I think is most useful is his description of the untermensch as those in thrall to a slavish culture. People incapable of independent thought. When I look at the British parliament and the legislatures of other Western nations it seems obvious that we live in an age of the untermensch.

What the untermensch share is a slavish adherence to a common culture which means that politicians of whatever political stripe, will all give the same replies to questions on policy. These are a few examples which demonstrate this clearly.

In Britain the housing market is broken and many people are forced to live in private rental sector. Properties in which they have no security of tenure and for which they pay ever increasingly exorbitant rents. Whenever it is suggested that these tenants should be given security of tenure or have their rents controlled, the same parrot cry comes from politicians, whether of the parliamentary left or right, that such controls would only make matters worse. They claim that such controls would force landlords to withdraw from the market, reducing the number of properties for rent and so making the situation worse for tenants.

Britain’s railways are the most expensive and some of the least efficient in Europe. When it is suggested that these railways should be taken out of private ownership and returned to the state, it meets with howls of derision from the collective parliamentary body. Everybody in parliament knows that the state is peculiarly unfitted to run business and businesses such as the railways are best left in private hands. The solution to the problem is as every parliamentarian knows is to transfer the railway franchises to more efficient private owners.*

There are many other examples of the politicians collective thought that could be mentioned. What is common to these practitioners of politics is a hatred of those that think independently, they expel or seek to suppress from the collectivity of politicians those who think differently. At present the parliamentary Labour party is seeking to purge itself of a leader who thinks differently. A glance at the politics of contemporary Europe provides evidence that those who think differently have no place in the mainstream political parties, they have to come from insurgent parties such as Podemos in Spain or The Five Star movement in Italy.

One common place truth of contemporary political analysis is that the political elites have lost touch with the people. It is a resentful and sullen people that turn to the populist parties of the right. These parties at leas recognise the pain of the people, something that the political parties of the left fail to do. Durkheim called socialism a cry of pain, the parliamentary socialist parties of today no longer this truth. Rather than ignoring the people, parliamentarians are following a culture that denies the validity of other expressions of the truth other than its own. Truths that might appear obvious to the people are to politicians merely uninformed opinions.

Another demonstration of the untermensch mentality is the slavish following of opinion polls. Rather than leading, politicians prefer to follow, all to often they are prepared to abandon their principles because the people as expressed a different views to theirs in an opinion poll and the peoples will  must be respected. Never do they consider that they are elected to lead the country, they prefer to follow.

The language of politics is so often that of the untermensch. One of our most popular newspapers is said to ensure that all of its content can understood by the average thirteen year. It does not tax its readers with difficult text or content. Similarly our leading politicians prefer the language of the thirteen year old which are  expressed in what are meaningless phrases or slogans. Our current Prime Minister is campaigning for re-election with a series of simple phrases, such as that she will provide ‘strong and stable government’ as opposed to the opposition who represent a ‘coalition of chaos’. She it seems feels no need to present a detailed and reasoned manifesto to the electorate.  A vague and rather meaningless manifesto will suffice and that is all she and her advisors believe is necessary is a few repeated slogans to get out the vote.

Defenders of the present political system will argue that the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians not only went to university, but elite universities and got good degrees. However the very intelligent can be members of the untermensch, as its a mentality or way of thinking and it is as much about  character as intellect. Politicians rarely stray beyond the party line or parliamentary consensus of views, they sacrifice their individuality on the altar of group think. What Nietzsche’s supermen do is to challenge the conventional thinking of the time. When politicians continually speak and think in the language of the average thirteen year old, it cannot but deform their personalities. What at first becomes a means of communicating with the masses through does through constant repetition become incorporated within their personality. They take some of the characteristics of what they affect to despise, the common or under man.

While I think that Nietzsche’s understanding of British democracy is correct today, it has not always been the case that the British parliament promotes the mediocre at the expense of the talented. Today parliament has been overtaken by the culture of the untermensch, whether its expressed in terms of loyalty to the one’s party, obedience to the will of the people or submission to the dominant Westminster belief system. In previous times there has been a much more vigorous culture at Westminster, one in which individualist thinkers could thrive and even achieve the highest office. What is needed is an ending of the stranglehold on Westminster culture of the parties of the consensus, then politicians of an independent mindset will begin to flourish there.

There are those who will have a different understanding of Nietzsche’s concept of the superman. Mine derives from the earlier writings of Nietzsche, as his understanding of the superman did change in his later writings. Obviously those who have read ‘The Will to Power’ a book created by his sister out of his notes will have a very different understanding. Personally I think that this understanding of Nietzsche’s superman is invalid and of little intrinsic merit.

* Any independent minded economist could easily expose the flaws in such thinking.

A Letter to Donald

Dear Donald

This short letter is my attempt to try to come to try to answer the question who is the real Donald, why does he behave as he does and why are you such a threat to the continued existence of liberal democracy. It is my attempt to come to terms with the phenomenon that is Donald Trump. If you met me you would notice a distinct difference in our manner. I am a man who  values modesty in conversation and behaviour. In short I am one of those Englishmen who overuses the world sorry, so I guess you can see why I find your behaviours so hard to understand. Not only that but I am also a liberal so we are so different in manner and our politics.

Although your personality is one steeped in anger, I think your anger comes from a fear of modernity. The world that you knew as a child, the America of the white heterosexual males is now being challenged, Now instead of the television presenter is less likely to be an Ed Sullivan, than a lesbian woman such as Ellen DeGeneres or a woman of colour such Oprah Winfrey. This is becoming an increasingly unfamiliar world to you in which you are not sure of your place in it. Formerly you would have been lauded for being a billionaire and having a much younger and beautiful wife, now many doubt the value of your achievements. This must be confusing to you, their must  be times when it seems that you are adrift in a hostile world. One reaction only is possible for you to this fearful world and that is anger, an anger which is so often caricatured by others as a snarl.

Unlike you I welcome the ‘differenceness’ of modernity, something I first encountered in a trip to Scandinavia in 1966. A difference demonstrated in the design of there housing and the beauty of their cities and towns, a beauty lacking in Britain. Other and later trips to Europe instilled in me an enthusiasm for the different. In 1970 I went to France where I had my first taste of French coffee, it was love at first taste. Until then coffee was instant coffee, either Nescafe or Maxwell House. A harsh tasting drink that you drank to keep you alert and buzzing. This French coffee tasted nice, it had flavour you enjoyed, coffee drinking now became an unalloyed pleasure. Getting to know other cultures and taking from them what I enjoyed has enriched my life.

New York as with London where I taught has become an increasingly cultural melting pot with an increasing diverse ethnic mix of peoples. While the integration of new ethnic groups could present problems of which as a teacher I was well aware. They also brought their cultures with them. Some saw these cultures as alien and a threat to the host society. Yet these cultures embodied a whole new range of cultural experiences that enriched the host culture. One such obvious enrichment was the West Indian carnival in Notting Hill. A diverse open society is a creative society and London at present is the leading cultural centre in Europe. The constant making and remaking of London culture that is the consequence of having to adapt and absorb new cultures is  a source of the creativity that makes London a leading culture centre. However with Brexit the open and welcoming culture of London will be lost as new ethnic groups and their cultures are increasingly excluded from Britain. What is likely to replace it is a cultural resistant to change and closed to new ideas?  In fact many of our new right politicians would welcome this, a London that increasingly resembled one of those dull provincial towns or cities that characterised Britain in the 1950s.

Although you regard Muslims as that most alien of the other, my experience of them is entirely different. I have encountered them as students and friends.   Coming into contact with them made me realise that there was another exciting culture and life to get to know. I have read the poetry of the Sufi master Rumi. No doubt you are familiar with the life of St. Francis of Assisi, but what you don’t know is that this greatest of Christian saints regarded Rumi as a spiritual master. This intermingling of European and Islamic culture has been of benefit to both societies throughout the millennia. The classics of Greek philosophy might have been lost if they had not been preserved in the translations of the Arab philosophers. Unlike you when coming into contact with a new culture, my reaction is not to reject it as something alien and foreign; instead I want to explore it, to learn from it. I have a friend who as you do rejects muslim culture as being alien and benighted, yet even he enjoys the poetry of Omar Khayyam.

What is frightening about your anger and that of your fellow believers of the right is that you have the power to turn back those aspects of modernity that you despise?  This is why you want to make abortion illegal. If women no longer have control of their bodies, they will be unable to live independent lives and will be forced back into the box of domesticity. Similarly there are the new Jim Crow laws of the South, which make it difficult for Americans of colour to vote.  These laws reduce the presence in the political arena of people of colour, a change which is ensuring that the white dominance of the South is continuing.  Another alien group is put back into its box, but this time it is the box is one of servitude. Although this turning back is but a temporary measure, history shows that regimes such as yours can successfully hold back the tide of history for many years.

What worries me is your destructive attitude towards those institutions that make civilised life possible. Liberals such as myself think that John Rawls political thinking provided the essential  template for making of a successful political system. He wanted to answer the question to which all liberals want a solution. How do you construct a political system that gives voice and sanction to people of different and often incompatible views in a manner which avoids the worst of the destructive and divisive effects of political conflict? Societies can be torn apart by warring factions as demonstrated so well in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. There the two rival factions, the Capulets and the Montague’s constantly threaten the peace of Verona with their constant feuding.

To this problem John Rawls had an interesting answer. His answer was that the constitution makers should indulge in an act of collective forgetting. When devising a constitution they should strive to forget their own beliefs and prejudices and try to exclude them from there thinking. Then they should focus on the building of a belief and bias free constitution. The emphasis should be on functionality not belief. One such example is the American constitution of 1787. The political system they devised was not free from fault, but until recently it had functioned effectively by containing political conflict within a system that delivered effective governance. Now unfortunately the new right that is the Republican party has set out to destroy that system that worked so well for two hundred years. The behaviour that you displayed towards former President Obama is demonstrative of the destructive behaviours of the new right. One of the main voices accusing Obama of being ineligible for office was yours. This nasty ‘birther’ campaign was a child of your making and did nothing other than to bring discredit American politics.

There are two requirements for a good political system. The first is how the winners treat the losers. The winners must accept the reality of the rotation of power, that is that the losers might be the winners next time around. They must accept the threat of the loss of power with good grace. While it is legitimate for politicians to seek to retain power, it is not legitimate when they use means which can only be described as illegitimate. American political history of the recent past has been little more than the attempts by the Republicans to change the political system in such a way as to permanently exclude the Democrats from power. Using the conservative Supreme Court to open elections to undue influence by the rich and powerful business corporations is one. These so called ‘super PAC’s  (political action committees) are free to spend as much money as they want to influence an election. The same court has permitted the gerrymandering of the electoral process to exclude potential Democrat voters in the South. When the winner refuses to acknowledge the right to dissent and opposition, the tenor of politics changes it becomes more shrill and intolerant. Politics is conducted in the language of a Fox News presenter or the ‘shock jock’.

What has been lost from contemporary politics is the civility of manner? In the early twentieth century the members of the various political parties in Britain would be at each others throats in the Chamber, but they were able to distinguish politics from the person. These same men would then meet at various country houses for weekend parties at which there was no trace of animosity. This courtesy no longer exists in contemporary politics and you are the exemplar of the new rude and brutal politics. Without the practice of courtesy politics becomes degraded into being an unpleasant fight in a bear pit. When intolerance towards the other is the practice of each party democratic politics becomes impossible. The ‘give and take’ that made democratic politics possible in the past has ceased to exist. The obstructive behaviour of the Republicans toward President Obama which culminated in the threat to shut down government is an example of the new destructive politics. Similarly the behaviour of the Republicans toward former President Clinton demonstrates most effectively the breakdown of the American political system. Shutting down government for a month by refusing funding and impeaching the President over an affair with an intern was the nadir of American politics. All the worst practices of Republican politics have culminated in you. The destructiveness of your political reign is likely to exceed in destructiveness the damage inflicted on American society by the actions of Senator McCarthy. HIs witch hunts inflicted irreparable damage to the lives of individuals, you threaten to inflict irreparable damage to the fabric of American society.

What I believe disqualifies you from high office in a democratic society is your lack of civility. This is incivility derives in a part from your fear of and anger at modernity, as a relatively  inarticulate man it is second nature to express your anger in abusive language and in uncivil behaviour. It is not the belief in reasoned argument that is practice which enables democracy to thrive. All to often recorded parliamentary debates in England and those in the Senate or Congress fail to demonstrate reason. Civility was one of the factors that influenced the construction of the House of Commons after it was destroyed by German bombs. It was deliberately made too small to accommodate 600 MPs comfortably, it small size was intended to ensure that debates would tend to brevity because of the discomfort of being too long in the Commons. This with the regular emptying of the Chamber for numerous votes would be a tension releasing mechanism, so preventing that build up of tension that would lead to outbreaks of bad temper and behaviour, evidenced in other parliaments. Unfortunately British politics all too often copies the worst of American practice and incivility is now becoming the dominant mode of British politics. By civility I mean the civilised behaviour that makes debate and political dialogue possible, not the abuse and demeaning of one’s opponents which is now the common practice of British politics. When Theresa May came to the US it was not just to make a trade deal but to meet a like minded politician, a man who is the master of incivility. Why I want you to go is not just because you threaten the existence of liberal democracy in the US, but because you give encouragement to those many European politicians that also want an end to liberal democracy. Manners are said to make a man, manners are needed to make a President.

Astrologers, soothsayers and pseudo economists

All political leaders share one common weakness and that is desire to know the future so as to be one step ahead of their rivals. This makes them susceptible to the practitioners of the various pseudo sciences that can give them both a knowledge of future events and how to use that knowledge to their advantage. These pseudo scientists that in the past practiced this spurious futurology were the astrologers and soothsayers, today these people are more likely to be economists and psephologists. It is the lust for power that makes politicians so susceptible to the machinations of soothsayers of various kinds. There is not one political leader today who does not have an in house psephologist on hand to read the political runes. This is a common practice that runs through the ages, as one contemporary leader Tony Blair had the psephologist Phillip Gould to hand while Elizabeth I had  the astrologer and alchemist John Dee.However I intend to focus this essay not on psephology but on the new pseudo economics.

Soothsaying and astrology as with pseudo economics claim to know the future and can offer policy prescriptions to obtain the best possible future outcomes. These economists claim to possess a unique knowledge of the world, a knowledge that only they understand. Soothsayers or astrologists could state from there understanding of the future when it would be a propitious time for action. There knowledge of the future and future events came from they understanding of the fundamental forces that determined the course of human history. Pseudo economists also claim a knowledge of those planetary forces of economics that will determine the future. In this case it is rather than the movements of the planets determining history it is the movement of market forces that determine history. They will claim that communist leaders wilful ignorance of these market forces will resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Following the lead of these economists historians began to see the future as being one in which the capitalist liberal democratic model was dominant. Possibly the most notable was Francis Fukuyama was perhaps the most notable with his essay and book entitled ‘The End of History and the Last Man’. In both the essay and book he predicted that history would end in all countries becoming capitalist liberal democracies.

Nostradamus pales into insignificance in comparison with these pseudo economists, he could only predict the collapse of great empires in the most elliptical and obscure of terms, he was not granted the knowledge that enabled him to name those empires that would collapse. Economists had a more secure knowledge they knew exactly which empires would collapse, that is the Soviet Union and the China of Mao. If economists know the future and they have the means of introducing the future now, they will do so. They have persuaded politicians throughout the Western World that the future is the free market capitalism system and their role is introduce the reforms that will make the future happen now. This all political leaders have done through a series of measures known as supply side reforms. All regulations such as employment protection laws have been removed because they prevent the free operation of the labour market, similarly health and safety regulation has been emasculated because that also prevents businessman doing what is best. There is an underlying and naive assumption that businessman are well intentioned and will work for the good of all. However the various scandals in the food supply industry show that this is not true.

The apparent success of those societies economists that follow the new free market system as compared to the old communist command economies has led to an over claiming of the success of the new economics and their over confidence has resulted in the practise of the worst kind of pseudo economics. These new economists and the politicians are guilty of creating a new economics that is almost childlike in it’s understanding of the economy and the wider society.

Evidence of this child like science is the introduction of simple moral terms into economics analysis. In its most simplest this new economics states that all government actions are bad, while all action of the free market are good. Obviously it is usually disguised by more complex language, as is demonstrated by the economics of the British Treasury. All economists of my generation that is the ‘Old Keynesians’ understood that all spending by the government increased demand in the economy and the level economic activity. Therefore in a recession the obvious policy was to increase government spending to stimulate economy. Old economists called this process by which spending increased the multiplier as government spending would lead to an increase in spending which was a multiple of the original sum spent. Now the Treasury has decided this no longer happens as it cannot conceive of any situation in which government spending is beneficial, instead it has decided that all government spending reduces overall demand and the level of economic activity. The Treasury has given the multiplier a negative value of 0.6 so if the government spends an additional £100 million pounds it will instead of increasing spending reduce it by £40 million, the Organisation for Economic Development gave the multiplier a value of 1.5, so that the same spending would increase demand by an additional £50 million. When economic policy is determined by such a child like morality such as this it becomes bad economics.

Why I prefer to call bad economics pseudo economics is because it is science that is as fallacious as astrology.

There are some disturbing consequences of the practice of pseudo economics, perhaps the worse is the belief is that governments should give up on most areas of governance in society and transfer their role to the private sector and the market. A belief that the economy works best when left free of government controls and regulations had disastrous consequences the manifested themselves in the great crash of 2008/9. Banks by this time were no longer subject to controls that required them to hold large reserves to protect themselves against a possible bank run that could occur in a financial crisis. Consequently when the crisis happened the banks held such small reserves of cash that they struggled to pay their customers who wanted to withdraw their money. Northern Rock was the first to fail and only a massive injections of government money prevented the failure of two of the big four banks, that is NatWest and Lloyds. Now eight years after the crash the banks are still largely unregulated and hold cash reserves that are again likely to prove inadequate in the event of another financial crash, so that they are likely to again need government cash to fund bail out. Their reserves are now 3% of assets as opposed to 2% of assets at the time of the crash.

Banks have resisted increasing their reserves to what many would regard as a safe level, that is 5% of assets, because money held as cash earns nothing for the bank. Keeping their reserves as low as possible enables them to maximise their profitability but at the expense of security of the institution.

When the government withdraws its governance from the various sectors of the economy it allows bad behaviour to flourish. The banks are not alone in behaving badly, many other sectors of business show evidence of wrong doing.

Despite the evidence politicians remain believers in the new pseudo economics, whenever its suggested that the imperfect markets of the real world need regulation the politicians throw their collective hands up in horror and resist any attempt at regulating these markets. They seem to be in thrall to the contemporary economic Nostradamus’s that believe they have discovered the secret to the future well being of the country is in free market system. If we want a good tomorrow all we have to do is let the markets work unhindered and they will deliver the good tomorrow. However as housing provision is increasingly being transferred to the private sector, the market seems increasingly distant from delivering that good tomorrow. The economic soothsayers are the many consultancies that advise the government. Unfortunately our political leaders are unable to see that these soothsayers and astrologists of the economic world are as misguided and ill informed as their medieval predecessors.

There is a hint of bitterness in my essay as I am a believer in good economics, the practice of which brings benefit to society not the pseudo science of today for most creates insecurity, misery and impoverishment in the name of creating a better tomorrow.

The Demise of the Liberal Democratic State and the rise of the Corporate State

Francis Fukuyama was wrong the 1990s did not herald the triumph of liberal democracy, but its showy demise. George Bush’s attempt to impose democracy on Iraq by force demonstrated the folly of this premise. Even the democratic programme that he sketched out gave a dominant role to the business corporations that would effectively control the new Iraq. Giving lie the all the claims about remaking Iraq on democratic lines. Prior to the invasion there was a quarrel between two of the main participants in the invasion over the distribution of the spoils  between the victors. British oil companies believed that the post invasion constitution gave too much to American and too little to British oil companies. The chaos of the post invasion Iraq denied the business corporations the influence and income they expected. Although the part of the profitable oil industry that is not under the control of Isis, is run by American oil corporations.

  
Perhaps it is in Europe that the evidence of the new nation state is best demonstrated. What is developing in Europe is a new corporate state, a state which functions primarily for the benefit of the business corporations? The financial crisis of 2008/9 illustrates this all too clearly. Due to irresponsible lending practices the banks failed, even if only a few crashed all threatened by the crash. Rather than let the banks fail the governments of Europe injected cash into the banks to prevent them failing. In Britain the bailout was equivalent to 10% of GDP, although given the huge size of the banking deficit the government was effectively mortgaging the countries assets and wealth to save the banks. It was not the banks that had to pay the price of their failure but the peoples of Europe. Europe wide austerity was regarded as necessary to reassure the banks creditors of the financial worthiness of the nations that were the guarantors  of their debts. A government with small debts would be regarded as a better guarantor of the banks credit than one with large debts. Surprisingly the banks got of almost scot free apart from a demand that they increase their cash reserves to 3% of total liabilities and ring fence retail banking, on which the banks are stalling. The Banks are now asking for the government eforms of an increasingly dysfunctional financial sector. In response to the pleas of the banks the demand to increase their cash reserves to their required total has been constantly put back, nowhere more so than in continental Europe. Despite claiming a government of financial prudence Germany has been one of the worst offenders. Only the other week the government in Britain refused to renew the contract of the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority as the banks had accused him of being to hard on them. In Britain as in Europe, what the banks want the banks get.

There are many serious problems that the government in Britain needs to tackle but one of them is not the reform of the state funded broadcaster the BBC. The agreement under which the BBC is funded is up for renewal soon and the government has used this as an opportunity for root and branch reform of the broadcaster. One of the main backers of the winning Conservative party was News International, the largest shareholder in Sky TV. The directors of this company has long argued for a change in the nature of the BBC, a change that would make it less of a competitor to Sky News. Its former Chief Executive James Murdoch argued for a change that would benefit Sky TV. He said in a lecture that the BBC  had a role as an innovative producer of TV programmes but it was not its role to exploit those innovative programmes. Once those programmes had been developed they should be given to the commercial broadcasters as the role of the BBC was to experiment not create popular TV. Unsurprisingly the main conservative spokesman on the media has echoed these views. He wants to end the BBC’s role of producer of popular programmes that compete with those of Sky TV. There is little doubt that one of the priorities of this government is to repay its corporate sponsors with favours.

Rather than continue with list of items that illustrate the increasing corporatisation of Britain, I want to compare the British governmental system to that of Russia. The Russian system of governance is often referred to as a mafia run oligarchy. All these commentators that do so fail to recognise the similarities between the Russian and British system of governance. Probably the only difference is in the level of criminality of the oligarchs in each country.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 the reformers in charge of the country wanted to adopt the free market of the West, so as to enjoy a similar level of prosperity. However they rushed into privatising their stated owned industries, without realising that the free market economies of the West were only successful because the market operated within a strong legal system that prevented the many abuses that occur in an unregulated market. Given what was literally a ground zero, the oligarchs were able to remake the Soviet economy to their own liking. They bought up the businesses at bargain prices and controlled the various sectors of economy, however for complete control they required control of the governmental system. This they achieved through bribery, intimidation and violence. Now President Putin runs a collective oligarchy, an oligarchy that exploits Russia wealth largely for its own ends. Opposition to the oligarchy is suppressed in ways similar to the former communist system, critics are subject to intimidation, often including violent assaults, and if that fails they are sent either to a mental asylum or camp where the mistreatment continues.

The oligarchs in Britain and Russia believe in a similar free market system, that is a free market in any obstacle to the free operation of business enterprise is removed. Obstacles such as trade unions, labour protection legislation and government interference. In Russia there was little too prevent the rise of the oligarch as in a ground zero economy (one in from which the state was largely absent) there could be no effective opposition and by controlling the government they can ensure that none arises. The task for the British oligarchs was much harder they had to create a society that was favourable to the free market (as they saw it). This meant they had to capture government and ensure that it introduced measures to remove all the obstacles to the smooth running of the market. Chief of these is the trade union movement and not surprisingly one of the first measures of this new corporate friendly government is legislation to further emasculate the trade union movement, so as to ensure that it cannot interfere with the smooth running of the market. The proposed legislation will effectively prevent trade unions from striking, so removing the  threat they pose to employers.

There is however one significant difference between Russia and Britain. Elections in the former are largely controlled by the state and there is never any likelihood that the opposition can come to power. In Britain elections are open and fair and the opposition can become the government. However the two main political parties are coming to resemble each other, when the opposition criticises a government policy, it is not so likely that they disagree with the policy as believing that they could implement it better. Increasingly the two main parties are becoming the mirror image of each other, but are committed to the philosophy of Neo-Liberalism. Unfortunately elections are increasingly becoming a competition between the groups  competing to be the representative of corporate Britain. One of the main concerns voiced by competitors for the leadership of the opposition party is that the previous leader was too distant from the corporate interest. Unfortunately too many politicians now see politics means to win a seat on the board.

The recent history of the Greek crisis shows how dominant is the corporate interest in Europe. When the Greek crisis caused by the nations over indebtedness occurred, the European policy makers could have agreed to a restricting of the Greek debt. This restructuring would have either involved pushing debt repayments in some time in the distant future or forcing the nation’s creditor to take a ‘hair cut,’ that is force them to accept a downsizing of the Greek debt. Either of these policies would have hurt the corporate interest, that is the banks would have lost billions of Euros in the ‘write down’ of the loans that they had made to Greece.  Instead the European politicians forced on to the Greek government a programme Neo-Liberal market reforms. These policies were intended to make the Greek economy more competitive and boost exports. The surplus earned on the export trade could be used to pay of the Greek debts. Unfortunately this Neo-Liberal experiment failed and after five years of austerity, economic growth has stalled and GDP is down 25% making it increasingly unlikely the debt will be paid.The International Monetary Fund states that payments on Greek debts should be deferred for thirty years, as only then will the economy have grown sufficiently to enable the Greeks to begin to pay off their debt.  Despite the urging of the USA the European politicians stubbornly support the banks cause and refuse to allow the Greek nation any debt relief.

Quite possibly the triumph of the corporate state is best demonstrated by the proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Programme (TTIP). When this treaty comes into force any business corporation that believes government policies have caused it a loss, can refer their case to an international arbitration panel. This means that if government legislation aimed at limiting the harmful effects of tobacco restricts the sale of this product, the tobacco company can go to the panel asking for compensation or a revoking of the act. There is one such dispute between a South American company and an American Tobacco giant. Soon such actions will become common place  and the sovereignty of European governments will be undermined. In Britain at least too many politicians are in favour of this policy, as they believe their support for TTIP will earn that a well paid position with one of the business corporations, they will willing surrender power for cash.

There is one failing of the corporate state and that it is remarkably incompetent, in that it lacks the competence to deal with a major crisis. The banks only survived the crisis of 2008/9 because they were supported by the government. There will be other such financial crisis in which business corporations will only survive with the support of government. There is in Europe the unresolved debt crisis, not the one of popular imagination but the combined private sector banking debt. A debt that in Britain exceeds 400% of GDP and in Germany 324% of GDP.

These business corporations have only a narrow minded view of the world a view one that is focused on their own self interest. The banks in Britain have been campaigning successfully for an end to restrictions on their less desirabale activities and the government has complied. It has largely passed unnoticed but at a recent City of London banquet the governor of ‘The Bank of England,’ said he saw no reason why banks should not be allowed to increase their assets to 900% of GDP.  The majority of a banks assets are loans which are funded by borrowing from others, so if Mark Carney has his way the debts of British banks will rise to astronomic levels. There will at some time be a crash that in scope will exceed that of 2008/9. A crash of these dimensions would force  a collapse of the corporate state as the government will be no only body with the authority and power to avert the collapse and rebuild the damaged society. One economist Anne Pettifor has written a book called ‘The First Word Debt’ crisis, a book which is ignored by all European politicians. Rather than act on the basis of the precautionary principle, the European politicians seem to act on t’he eyes firmly shut’ principle.

All political systems contain within themselves the seeds of destruction, in the social democratic society of the past it was the conflict between the major business corporations and society. A conflict that the former won. The corporate state is more unstable than other political systems as there is no great vision or commonality of view that unites the community of business corporations. The only commonality is their hostility to any regulation of the free market and in reality they are a number of social units all pursuing their own self interest. This means that the corporate society lacks the strong mechanism for directing society to towards a greater end other than mere self interest, lacking this overarching powerful body, society can only fall apart in the event of being struck by an economic or social tsunami.

The great floods that devastated New Orleans demonstrate how the new corporate state fails to cope with  crisis. Cuts made to the emergency and environmental services made at the behest of a business dominated tax cutting government had left these services unable to respond adequately to the floods and their inaction prior to the flooding worsened the devastation. The levies that protected the town were in a state of disrepair and unable to resist the tidal surge and broke. All the world could do was watch in horror as the American government failed to halt the destruction of New Orleans.

The failure to resolve the Greek crisis points to a future crisis in Europe. Greece is but a small country accounting for but 3% of the European Union’s GDP, yet the European Union struggles to find a solution to its problems. It’s only success is in replacing the various democratically elected governments that are hostile to its austerity programme. Greece only rid itself of the military junta popularly known as the Greek colonels in 1974. The Greek army is the one institution that has not been devastated by the Neo-Liberal reforms imposed by the EU  and it may be the only body that is capable of eventually restoring social order after the havoc caused by the latest austerity and reform programme. Possibly this is the future for us all as the failures of the Neo-Liberal or corporatist state can only result in its replacement by authoritarian state supported by the military. The pro business agenda so having hollowed out the democratic state its institutions lack the resources to respond to a major crisis. This is demonstrated by the financial crash of 2008, the Chancellor of the time commented in a newspaper article that the crash was imminent. Yet despite this knowledge the government and Treasury were incapable of taking any action to avoid the crash, much like a rabbit that is frozen by fear when faced with the headlights of an oncoming car.

The Return of Serfdom to Britain

Friedrich von Hayek published in 1944 his very influential book “The Road to Serfdom,” a book which is the mainstay of today’s policy makers. He warned of the dangers of an over mighty state, one in which professionals such as doctors gave up their independence as private practitioners to become servants of the state. The doctors would no longer be able to practise medicine freely but have to follow the dictates of their employer, the government. He warned of the same trend happening to all professions whereby independent lawyers etc would be giving up their freedom to become to be subject to a new form of bondage which denied them the freedom to practise as they wished, they would become the new serfs, bound to the new state. However he was living in the age of totalitarianism and he feared what he saw the makings of a new totalitarian state in Britain. Britain did not become a totalitarian state, in fact the totalitarian state that Hayek so feared, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990.

  
Image of Chinese serfs working in a field taken from http://www.chinadaily.com

This was a prophetic book in that it was right to predict a new serfdom, but wrong in predicting the source of this new serfdom. He believed that the free market was the organisational mechanism best designed to ensure freedom, as in the free market the individual was free to make their own choices, as there was no powerful over arching organisation making the choices for them. However what Hayek failed to realise that the free market would be a source of the new serfdom. What he overlooked was the inequality in power relationships, in free market it the most powerful players have the most influence. The most influential players are the big business corporations, they determine the conditions under which the free market operates and these are often detrimental to their employees and customers. What Hayek failed to realise was that the state could be a liberating factor as much as an enslaving one. He failed to see the wood amongst the trees, he could not envisage alternate model of the state, for him the state was an authoritarian organisation,one that always threatened to take away an individual’s freedom. Given that he was a refugee from Nazi Germany this misconception as to the nature of the state is understandable. 
Perhaps the best understanding of the role of the state as a liberating force comes from the writings of the 19th century sociologist Emile Durkheim. He explained that the state in the 19th century through introducing laws to protect the citizen from oppressive landlords and employers was liberating the individual from these many local tyrants. Legislation to protect employees from unsafe working conditions, working long hours and being given the right to form associations (Trade Unions) to protect their interests gave people a freedom that they had never enjoyed before. Throughout the 20th century developments in legislation gave rise to the welfare state, in which the individual was guaranteed freedom from want and protection against the evils that can result from individual misfortune. The significance of this freedom from want was never understood by the intelligentsia, the freedoms they valued were the political freedoms, freedom of expression, freedom from excessive state control. Economists overwhelming came from the privileged classes, two of the 20th century greats Hayek and Schumpeter were aristocrats and for them what mattered was being free from an oppressive government, not from want.
Hayek despite witnessing the horrendous poverty that he saw in Europe in the period of the Great Depression, never ceased to believe that the free market was the best means to solve these problems. State control and intervention in the economy he associated with the totalitarian states of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. He saw freeing the economy from state control as the only way to ensure the survival of the democratic state, for him there could be no democratic state without the free market. It was from his work that the Neo-Liberal economic and political philosophy of developed. This has become the dominant philosophy of the political classes, but its adoption as the practical philosophy of government has not lead to greater freedom and a more democratic society, but a new subtle form of serfdom. 
What the Neo-Liberals with their demand for a small state and minimal interference in the economy were creating was a society for most that has less freedom than its predecessor, as it was the state that guaranteed so many freedoms. It was these freedoms that were attacked by the Neo-Liberal economists, as they saw them as an obstruction to smooth running of the free market. Labour regulations restricted the hours for which businesses could employ staff, placed limits on how they could be used and made workers more expensive by imposing payroll taxes to finance social welfare benefits. Successive Neo-Liberal governments removed these restrictions and cost impediments on how employers could use their workers and have created what is called a flexible labour market. However this market has created by removing all the protections that labour enjoyed from abusive employment practices. What the Neo-Liberals have created a new social system that has many aspects of the old feudal system, such as being bound to one employer.

Our leaders in Britain boast that they have created the most flexible and competitive labour market in Europe, ignoring the many abuses practices in this new labour market. The most obvious abuse is the practice of zero hours contracts, where workers are contracted to work for an employee, but are not given any fixed hours of work or even guaranteed any minimum hours of work, instead they must be ready to work when the employee needs them. There is a clause in these contracts that forbids them to look for alternative work in the hours when their employer does not need them, as that would prevent them being free to work for their employer when needed. They as with the feudal villein are bond to their employer, the first could not leave their village to find work elsewhere and the zero hours worker is forbidden to find any additional work with a new employer. This new serfdom is a little more humane as employees are free to change employers, not a right enjoyed by medieval serfs.
However this right is severely limited as the new serf must have found a job before they leave. They don’t have the option of leaving an abusive employer, unless they have alternative work as the new benefits system will deny benefits to any claimant they deemed to have made themselves intentionally unemployed. 
Then there are the workers of split shifts, usually this is in the retail trade. Workers are expected to work two short shifts a day, when the shop is busy or the employer needs them. Again they cannot look for alternative work for those hours of the day when they are not employed in the shop, as they must leave themselves free for the unexpected call from the employer who might need them if a staff member is sick. Again they as with the zero hours employer are bond to their employee.
Britain can boast of one of the highest employment rates in the European Union but this is because labour in Britain is cheap and employers are free to employ workers using the most exploitative labour practices. Is it really a success story when a postgraduate student from Spain comes to London to find work as a barista?
Initially this practice was confined to the fast food outlets but the practice has become widespread within the services industry and has begun to spread to the professions. Increasingly new staff at the universities are employed on these contracts as are some technician posts within hospitals.
What the proponents of the free market have failed to understand is the inequality of power relationships within the free market. The market is not a meeting place of equals but of unequals, and the latter will if not constrained by law exploit their power. Unequals are the rich and powerful and the big business corporations. Freed from the law restricting how the business can use it staff, it will use them in the ways that suit them best and that best is treating the staff badly. It should be of no surprise that slavery is now a concern in modern Britain. At present it is foreign residents importing bringing in domestic staff with them who are largely responsible, but there are disturbing cases of it happening with exploitative UK employers who force vulnerable people into what can only be described as slavery. When the law is removed from the from market employers can behave as badly as they please. Even those agencies that are supposed to enforce the few remaining employment laws are reduced to ineffectiveness through constant staff cuts.
The Neo-Liberals failed to realise a free the market in which there is freedom of choice, frees people to behave badly as there is no sanction on bad behaviour. Perhaps it is not unfair to compare the big corporations with the medieval robber barons as both sought to enrich themselves at the expense of the wider community. While the medieval baron would levy a charge on goods passing through his territory, a more sophisticated robbery is practised today. One example of this is the pharmaceutical industry. There a small company will discover a new drug but lack the resources to market it. They then enter into a marketing relationship with a large company to market and distribute this drug, usually this relationship becomes a takeover and by the larger company. However this large company adds a further cost onto the price of the drug, which they call development costs and then sell it at many times its original price. These new robber barons rob both their staff (through paying them minimal wages) and their customers by overcharging for their products. 
What Britain as do many other Western countries seem to be doing is to be lurching into a Neo-Medieval society which is dominated by the business corporation. A glance at the last election demonstrated this when all the parties claimed to be busy friendly, the people barely got a mention. Despite the dire housing crisis in London caused by lack of affordable accommodation not one political party in the election proposed any measure that would put have effectively ended the crisis, as that would have threatened the income of the large property companies that dominate the housing market. 
History never repeats but older historical patterns can reoccur in later historical periods. Contemporary serfdom is not as cruel or restrictive as that of medieval Britain, but it is similar in its essentials, that is the great corporations can as did the medieval Dukes freely dispose of the people at their command. While the medieval Dukes could direct the lives of their serfs in a number of ways, they for example could compel them to join their armies, transfer villages and the people that lived in them to another lord without any regard to the villagers wishes and could in addition control most aspects of their lives, today the great corporations can exercise similar powers over their workers. In today’s Britain the government can decide to transfer a public service into private ownership, usually with the consequence of a worsening of working conditions for the existing employees. In the name of cost efficiency wages are reduced, pension schemes terminated or emasculated and employment protections removed. All these negative changes occur without the workers being allowed to voice their opposition to these changes. Also the new privatised owner is free to dismiss any number of existing staff. These new petty tyrants have a similar decree of control over their workers lives as did the medieval baron. The withdrawal of the state has meant any pressure to ameliorate or remove the most abusive of employment practices has been removed. Now increasing the British people are entering into a new form of servitude quite alien to the freedoms of a modern democratic society.