We Make Our Own History: Discussion and Book Launch

, , No Comment

The launch event takes place in Connolly Books (East Essex St, Temple Bar) at 6 pm on Wednesday 9th December.

How are social movements doing in Ireland? What kind of real change might be on the cards, here and in Europe or further afield? What are the key issues that we should be thinking about if we want to see it happen?

Co-written with Norwegian researcher on Indian movements Alf Gunvald Nilsen, my book We Make Our Own History: Marxism and Social Movements in the Twilight of Neoliberalism (Pluto, 2014) draws on the Maynooth tradition of activist research in social movements to read Marxism as a reflection of the learning of popular struggles and uses this approach to explore how movements grow out of the struggle to meet human needs, how they develop, how the collective agency of the powerful and wealthy works and what all this means for the struggle against neoliberalism today.

Launched at the London “Historical Materialism” conference, the book has raised interest wherever movement struggles are intense (reprinted in South Africa, translated into Turkish, with Indian editions and translations under discussion) and we have been invited to discuss the book at Ruskin College Oxford’s International Labour and Trade Union Studies MA, the European University Institute’s social movements research centre, the Collège d’Etudes Mondiales in Paris, the University of Gothenburg’s Forum on Civil Society and Social Movements, Reykjavík Academy / Radical Summer School, the University of Bergen, and in South Africa at the universities of KwaZulu Natal, Johannesburg, Wits and Rhodes among others.

It’s been reviewed among other places in Counterpunch, Working USA, Marx and Philosophy, Radikalportal, Trade Unions and Global Restructuring and Social Movement Studies, along with mentions on and … the Huffington Post. Excerpts and related essays have appeared in Ceasefire, Progress in Political Economy, OpenDemocracy, Reflections on a Revolution, Discover Society and E-International Relations.

For the Dublin launch, rather than focus exclusively on the book there will be a discussion about the state of movements and our possible futures. Chaired by John Bissett, there will be short talks from Margaret Gillan, Andrew Flood and Fergal Finnegan to open a wider debate.

The launch event takes place in Connolly Books (East Essex St, Temple Bar) at 6 pm on Wednesday 9th December.

By way of an appetiser, here are some excerpts from what the book has to say about working-class community activism in Ireland

Read Post →


Reflections on Water Movement and Right2Change Development


Probably the most encouraging development that has come out of the water charges movement has been the accentuated understanding of ‘them’ and ‘us’; the idea that society is organised so as to benefit the minority at the expense of the majority. This is the starting point that all of us on the left had been yearning for since the beginning of the crisis. Undoubtedly, it was slow to arrive but when it finally did so, it was truly an explosion of struggle and organisational prowess, as we finally said ‘enough is enough’.

Any lingering illusions that the mainstream media, establishment parties or big business exist to better our lives, will have been dispelled for those at the heart of the movement. However, conclusions on how to change society for the better are numerous, unclear and disjointed. This comes as no surprise with an embryonic movement, which lacks ready-made and large radical institutions to provide solutions.

Ireland is a tax haven for big business

Rome, or Dublin for that matter, wasn’t built in a day. Economies and societies are incredibly complex systems that have developed over centuries. Ireland’s economy, in particular, presents many structural challenges for the left that simply cannot be wished away or eradicated overnight. The most successful capitalist economies are those which have the strongest industrial bases, specifically economies which actually make things and have goods or raw materials to trade with others countries or markets.

Read Post →


Championing the Self-Employed

, , No Comment

The Left and trade union movement should champion the self-employed.   While the Right gives promises of tax breaks, the self-employed need so much more:  a stronger welfare state and public sector intervention to empower self-employed workers in the market place.  Indeed, what the self-employed need is what PAYE employees need: social security and market strength.

 Let’s do some background numbers.  In Ireland, there are approximately 320,000 self-employed or 17 percent of total employment.  Of these, 69 percent are own-account workers – that is, they don’t have employees.   Throughout the EU-15, the self-employed make up 14 percent with the same proportion of own-account workers.  In Ireland, nearly one-in-six in the workforce are self-employed.


Unsurprisingly, self-employed in the agriculture and fishing sectors make up a quarter of all self-employed.  This is followed by construction and retail, with professional and technical self-employed making up 10 percent.  There are smaller numbers spread throughout all economic sectors.

Read Post →


Begruding the Recovery

, , No Comment

Cliff Taylor asks why President Michael D. Higgins is not celebrating the recovery we are experiencing. 

‘The President is not comfortable saying anything positive about the Irish economic recovery.’

Apparently, the President is a bit of begrudger; indeed, all of us who opposed austerity are.

‘But if you are in the anti-austerity camp then the fact that the Irish economy is now growing strongly is an inconvenient truth.

Not only is reality inconvenient, we are guilty of being fantasists.

‘The anti-austerity brigade seems to assume there was some way for Ireland to magically escape cutbacks when a huge gap had emerged between annual spending and revenue even before the bank bailout costs.’

But then Cliff bemoans the lack of ‘measured discussion’.   Does labelling people begrudger, reality-deniers and fantasists constitute measured discussion?  At the risk of further labelling, let’s try to engage in some of that – measured discussion, that is.

A good starting point is the Central Bank’s recently published Economic Letter which summarises a major study on fiscal consolidation in the Eurozone between 2011 and 2013. The study used two models to measure the impact of austerity – the EU and the ECB model.  They further utilised three scenarios:  a baseline, one where business debt was factored in and, thirdly, credit-constrained households.  In short, the study found:

  • The impact of austerity measures were much more severe than previously estimated – so much so that for €1 billion of austerity, the economy fell by €1 billion and more
  • That spending cuts had a more severe impact than tax increases
  • That debt rose in the years after the austerity measures were introduced – only falling some five or six years (and possibly longer)
  • That the austerity measures were the primary reason behind the Eurozone’s slugging growth performance

They concluded by saying it was a mistake to pursue austerity measures while the economy was in a slump; addressing the debt should have been postponed until after the economy recovered.  If this were done, the debt would fall more quickly and the economic damage (unemployment, falling wages, business bankruptcy) would have been less.   While this was a study of the Eurozone as a whole, there is no doubt that Ireland experienced this – especially as our level of austerity was nearly double that undertaken in the Eurozone as a whole.

Read Post →


Wealth Report

, , No Comment

Researchers with the Swiss bank Credit Suisse have just published their latest annual global wealth report, Global Wealth Report 2015. The United States, the report informs us, currently has more than twice as many millionaires as the next four richest nations — the UK, Japan, France, and Germany — combined. It also notes that the trend in growing inequality and the accumulation of wealth by a tiny elite continues unabated. 

There is no mention in the report of exploitation, imperialism or war. But it does contain a fairly stark depiction of socio-economic insanity.  

“While the  bottom half of adults collectively own less than 1% of total wealth, the richest decile holds 87.7% of  assets, and the top percentile alone accounts for half of total household wealth.”

The Report makes some effort to explain this state of affairs. For example, it notes with interest that 

“North America and Europe also contribute many members  to the bottom wealth decile” but it doesn’t put this down to  the increasing exploitation of workers in core imperialist states as wealth is siphoned . into the private and largely  hidden coffers of a tiny elite.

Instead, for the economists of Credit Suisse the growing number of people in the west living at third-world levels of poverty “reflects the ease with which individuals – especially  younger individuals – can acquire debt in these regions”.

So that explains it.

Read Post →


This Wealth is Your Wealth, This Wealth is My Wealth

, , No Comment

Recently, RTE aired ‘Ireland’s Great Wealth Divide’.  Though there were some problems with the analysis (ignoring the wealth of data published by the CSO, the confusing conflation of income and wealth, the unsubstantiated assumption that Ireland was ‘good’ at wealth generation) and the prescriptions (there wasn’t any) it at least gave an airing to a subject that doesn’t get much airing: inequality. 

A major gap in the programme, however, was a failure to acknowledge one of the biggest wealth divides – that between public and private wealth. First, let’s define wealth.  It is the value of all assets, whether those assets are held by households, businesses or states.  It can comprise physical assets such as buildings, land, machinery; liquid assets such as cash; and intangible assets – assets are not physical and are hard to value (e.g. a brand’s goodwill).  It is on the basis of this wealth that we generate income.

Private wealth is owned privately – by individuals or businesses.  Wealth indexes – likethe Credit Suisse report featured in the RTE programme – measure the wealth that is held by households.  Public wealth, on the other hand, is held by a public agency:  Government Departments, public agencies, local authorities and commercial enterprises.  These, too, generate income, create economic and business activity and are used for individual and social need (e.g. a local authority house). 

The amount of public capital is vast and under-appreciated.  Let’s run through a list that is far from exhaustive:

  • Land
  • Commercial, residential and heritage buildings – in use and derelict
  • Hospitals, schools, prisons, clinics, galleries, museums, libraries
  • Waterways – rivers, lake, canals, on-shore and off-shore
  • Roads, bridges, rails, airports, docks and seaports
  • Assets of commercial public enterprises
  • Financial assets:  Strategic Investment Bank, cash balances, Central Bank, retail banks

This is a vast portfolio of assets that generate income, business activity and living standards.  Much of it difficult to value – how do you measure, in Euros and cents, Lough Ray or the off-shore seas (though this can be done if the property can be privatised; anyone want to buy the Shannon?). 

How did this wealth come into being?  Apart from natural resources, these came about because of investment.  Public decisions in the past to invest in infrastructure, businesses, public services and capital assets form the basis of our public wealth today.

In fact, there is so much public wealth around us that sometimes we take it for granted without understanding how absolutely important it is – and what role it can play in future wealth and income generation for all of our benefit.

Read Post →


The Portuguese election: quicksand in the center, an emboldened left and a desperate president

, , No Comment

An article by João Camargo, an activist in the Precarios Inflexiveis Movement on events in Portugal

The Portuguese center-right ultraliberal government, which went “far beyond the troika” won a relative majority in the 4th of October general election. With 36.8% of the vote and 1.994 million votes, the previous governmental coalition (PSD and CDS) was the winner. In second place came the Socialist Party, with 32.4% and 1.746 million votes. The biggest surprise and strongest rise was the Left Bloc, which had 10.2% of the vote with 551 000 votes, followed by the Communist Party, with 8.3% and 446 000 votes. When compared to the previous 2011 election, the right-wing parties lost more than 700 000 votes, the Socialist Party (PS) had 160 000 more, the Left Bloc (BE) rose by 260 000 and the Communist Party (PCP) by 3400 votes.

The PS, which has for the last forty years been running the country with the Social-Democrats (PSD) and the conservatives (CDS) suffered a massive shock, although the polls in previous weeks clearly predicted this outcome. Not seen as an alternative to the rightwing’s austerity, it had a disastrous campaign after its best-known leader, previous prime-minister José Sócrates, was arrested for corruption. It now faces its greatest dilemma: turning right and approving a right-wing government or turning left and opening a whole new scenario, never seen in Portuguese politics: a PS government supported in Parliament by left-wing parties (BE and PCP, which now amount to 18.5%, one million votes).

The President of the Republic, former prime-minister (1985-95), Cavaco Silva, had previously stated, far exceeding his mandate, that he would not empower a relative majority and an unstable government. After a long career once more he has lied. Two days after the election, after meeting with only his own party (PSD), Silva told the country he had asked Passos Coelho (former prime-minister and head of the winning coalition) to form a stable government, in which there couldn’t be parties that didn’t assume “international and historical treaties and agreements”, as well as “the grand strategical options” adopted for the last 40 years: that is, NATO, European Union, the Euro, the EU’s Budgetary Treaty and the future TTIP. This option clearly meant to exclude BE and PCP from any governmental solution. Nonetheless, it was to the left that António Costa, leader of PS, turned.

The PS-PCP meeting, the day after the President of the Republic laid out his “rules” as to who could be in government, came as a shock: the communists said that they would support a PS government and could even eventually be a part of that government. The communists felt the pressure from being overtaken once again by the Left Bloc and gave a historic sign of the political possibilities of participating in a broader coalition. During the campaign, in the debate with PS leader, BE’s spokeswoman Catarina Martins laid down conditions for talks on a left agreement, telling the PS to retreat on three points of its program: no freezing on current pensions, no welfare reform with cuts on future pensions and no flexibilization of labour laws. On the election evening speech, Martins was also clear: “The Left Bloc will do everything to prevent the right wing coalition forming a government. We now await for the response of the other parties”. PCP spoke afterwards and supported this idea. The final decision would be in the hands of the PS.

Read Post →


A Return to Boom-and-Bust

, , Comment Closed

Never mind the details.  If we are to believe even half of the media leaks, the Government is preparing to return us to the kind of boom and bust fiscal policy that dominated the pre-crash period.

The context is different but the character is the same.  Between 1997 and 2007 corporate tax was slashed, capital gains and inheritance taxes were halved while the effective personal tax rate fell by 25 percent.    During that period budgets rode the wave of property tax revenue but when the crash hit our hollowed-out tax base was exposed. Revenue fell by over 22 percent or €16 billion in the first three years of the crash, resulting in a massive deficit.   The economy was built on the quicksand of unsustainable tax revenue.

Fast-forward to the 2016 budget to be presented tomorrow and a whole number of tax-cut goodies are being dangled in front of us:

  • USC
  • Self-employed
  • Landlords
  • Inheritances
  • Capital gains
  • Corporate tax (knowledge-box) and other business taxes

The Taoiseach has made it clear this is the first of a series of tax-cutting budgets.   We are hurtling back to the future.

Some may argue that increased tax revenue can more than make up for this.  But budget management now determines that excess revenue will have to be used to pay down debt – paying for tax cuts and/or spending increases will require equivalent tax raising and expenditure reduction measures (beyond the fiscal space of €1.5 billion).  The EU fiscal rules put us in a whole different game.

However, this game doesn’t prevent fiscal irresponsibility any more than they wouldhave prevented the pro-cyclical polices prior to the crash.  And this is where the problems arise.

Today, tax cuts will be subsidised, not by property boom revenue but by depressing badly needed public spending increases.  The Government has set aside €750 million for spending increases.  But:

  • A minimal €200 million has already been assigned to capital investment.
  • The Government’s Spring Statement and the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council state that €300 million is needed just to keep pace with changing demographics.
  • And a further €200 million is needed just to inflation-proof non-pay expenditure on public services. 

That’s €700 million before we even get out of the starting gates.  And this doesn’t include the Lansdowne Road Agreement or increases in social protection (somewhat offset by declining unemployment payments).  More importantly, this doesn’t factor in the considerable social repair that needs to be undertaken in the wake of austerity.  And as for expanding public services to European norms – that’s not even on the agenda.

While expenditure may exceed this €750 million, it will have to come from somewhere – including cutbacks in other areas of expenditure.  This is not as ominous as it sounds; savings from reducing the prescription medicine bill can be redirected into other areas.  But there is a limit to these savings.

Read Post →


Renua’s Carnival Ride Back to Boom-and-Bust

, , Comment Closed

The silly season usually refers to August.  Now we have the silliest of seasons –the run-up to a budget in the run-up to a general election.  Minister Richard Bruton has recently called for a low flat rate tax on immigrants and returning Irish, along with cutting capital gains tax to 10 percent.  Brian Lucey has called some of the ideas both bad and stupid.

But Minister Bruton runs a poor second to Renua in the race-to-the-ridiculous stakes.  Renua has called for a flat-rate tax.  It represents a massive transfer from the lowest income groups to the highest income groups.  It will require low and middle income groups to fund not only their own tax cuts but even higher tax cuts for those on much higher incomes.   As Brian says of Minister Bruton’s proposals – it is an idea whose time has not come (and hopefully never will).

Renua proposes that income tax, employees’ PRSI and USC be abolished and replaced by a flat-rate tax of 23 percent.  This will be complemented by what is called a ‘Basic Income’ that tapers out slightly above average earnings (this is not actually a basic income – it is a hybrid of a tax allowance and negative income tax).  Renua doesn’t detail how this tapering works so we can’t do an income distribution impact assessment for all income groups.  However, here are a couple of examples from their own pre-budget submission with some estimates of my own.


Yes, you’re reading the graph right.  A low-paid worker on €20,000 would end up paying more tax.  Someone on an average wage would benefit by €800.  However, it’s bonanza city for those on €100,000 and more.  Calculations for €36,000 and higher are my own.

There is a similar regressive impact when considering couples.   Renua states that a couple on €50,000 (both working, same salary) would gain €1,665.  A couple on €100,000 would gain €9,741 – or more than six times the nominal amount.  Couples on even higher incomes would benefit disproportionately more.

Read Post →


‘Butskellism’ versus Keynes and Marx

, , Comment Closed

This article originally appeared on Socialist Economic Bulletin on Wednesday the 7th of Oct

Economics of budget deficits

The debate is continuing on the purpose of government borrowing and the role of ‘balanced budgets’ – which was started by John McDonnell’s position of balancing the budget on current expenditure but borrowing for investment. This is not surprising given that economic policy has to be the core of the programme for a Labour government.

A thoughtful addition to the debate is this piece by Jo Michell in theGuardian, who asks for a real alternative to Osborne, which SEB has provided in relation to the Fiscal Responsibility Act. But an important misunderstanding should be clarified. That article argues that advocacy of a balanced current budget over the business cycle would be to ’emulate Ed Balls and austerity lite.’ That is incorrect. It would only be the case if the level of government investment were maintained at current miserably low levels. Instead what is proposed here is a transformational increase in public investment, sufficient to foster a sustained recovery led by public investment. Far from this being ‘austerity lite’ it makes state driven investment a key to economic policy – entirely unlike the policy of Ed Balls.

The piece below examines this attachment to persistent government budget deficits, which have been combined with a simultaneous long-run decline in public investment.

The position on Osborne’s proposals that a Labour government should balance the budget on current expenditure over the business cycle but borrow for investment is set out in an earlier article here. It follows from the fact that the purpose of economic policy is, or should be, to optimise the growth in the sustainable living standards of the population. Increasing living standards requires growth – internationally over 80% of increases in consumption are due to economic growth. Since it is not possible to increase the fundamental productive capacity of the economy without investment, investment is the decisive factor in producing growth (in an overall framework of increasing the division/socialisation of labour). Therefore economic policy, including fiscal policy, should aim at increasing investment and gradually enhancing the proportion of output devoted to investment. This is the precondition for more rapid growth – ‘growing the economy out of the crisis’ as John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn put it. Borrowing should primarily be confined to investment, only resorting to support consumption in specific exceptional circumstances – such as to maintain living standards of the least well off sections of the population during economic downturns. Social protection should be financed via taxation – levied in a disproportionate way on the richer sections of the population.

Read Post →


Housing Without Profit, People with a Home


The following is based on a talk I gave to the housing conference held on Saturday: ‘Towards a Real Housing Strategy’.  There were excellent contributions from academics, activists and victims of the housing crisis.  The contributions from Dr. Lorcan Sirs (DIT), Dr. Sinead Kelly and Dr. Mick Byrne (both from Maynooth) were particularly provocative, as were many others;including Fr. Peter McVerry and Dr. Rory Hearn.

The current model of 100 percent local authority provision of social housing is no longer capable of meeting the new challenges – not only because of future fiscal restraints and competing demands from other sectors – health, education, social protection, economic infrastructure, etc.  Future social housing provision will need to accommodate low and average income households – something which the private rental sector will struggle with, especially as transnational landlords, inward foreign investment and up-market accommodation are squeezing so many out.

This requires a new public sector-led model to adequately house a larger section of society and ensure that rents do not become a burden on the productive economy. 

There are three principles that can inform this new model:

  • It is not-for-profit (cost rental)
  • It blurs the distinction between the ‘social’ and the ‘private’ so that the not-for-profit housing leads and eventually dominates the entire rental sector (unitary market)
  • It reduces the impact on public finances (off-the-books)

This will, in the first instance, require new housing providers. 

Read Post →


Initial Thoughts on the Results of the Greek Elections and Lessons for Ireland

, , Comment Closed

The Greek Elections’ Results

The number of the people that did not vote is the largest one in the elections history so far. This is to do with the capitulation of Tsipras, and the enforcement of the left TINA, as well as with financial restrains for the voters that had to travel.

Syriza’s victory was not based on ‘hope’ or any expectations for a more socially just governance. It was a personal victory for Tsipras, which tapped into the emotional “he’s a good kid, the EU were hard on him, at least he negotiated hard” on one hand, and the more moderate, centrist “Now that he got rid of the left burden, he will be more sensible and the government will be more stable” on the other. The new left TINA, in particular, played a role in reversing the radicalisation of large groups of the Greek population (especially the young, and working class urban areas), and appealed to the collapsing middle classes. “Stability” has entered Syriza’s vocabulary.

Tsipras’ victory was also based on the ideological and organisational defeat of the left alternatives. KKE’s stance in the memorandum sounded like a broken clock that tells the time correctly twice a day, but they failed to support and express the OXI. LAE (Popular Unity) ran for the elections attempting to express the OXI, while at the same time attempting to revive Syriza’s -in my view bankrupt- programme. However, their focus was on humourous TV spots, rather than the programme itself and the fact that it was mostly a party/front of prominent ex Syriza MP’s that have not addressed what their role in the Syriza government was turned a lot of people off. Antarsya-EEK, going through a split (with ARAN and ARAS siding with LAE), got a few thousand votes more than they did in the January elections. However, their programme needs to be substanciated. It also has not reached the wider population (partly due to the small organisation and lack of access to the media) and they failed to present it in detail. In this sense, Antarsya is seen as a useful force for the struggles, but not good enough as a parliamentary force.

A separate mention to the declining votes of Golden Dawn is necessary here. Golden Dawn did not manage to grow in an environment, which is characterised by disappointment on one hand, and the refugee crisis on the other. Even though their votes were higher than last elections on the Islands of Kos and Lesvos, they were not significantly higher and they were mostly votes that came from other right wing parties, such as New Democracy. It is also important to stress that dispite their attempts they have not managed to build a fascist movement on the streets as their presence, on those islands too, is very limited and they are outnumbered by the activists standing in solidarity with the refugees.

In all, the 2.86% (155000 votes) of LAE. the rise of votes to Antarsya-EEK (by 4200 votes), as well as smaller maoist and troskyist parties, such as the ML KKE-KKE (ml) coalition and OKDE, and the stability in the votes of KKE would not allow anyone to say that the Greek left is dead and buried, far from it. This is evident especially in comparison to the losses of votes for Syriza, and the establishment parties. Syriza lost 320000 votes, while New Democracy lost 192000,To Potami lost 151000, Golden Dawn 8800.

Regardless of the voting outcome, I believe, discussions and other collaborative efforts from a movement-building perspective between LAE and Antarsya-EEK and other anticapitalist organisations-parties will take place the following period, as the struggle against the 3rd Memorandum will start unfolding.

Read Post →


The Desert of the Irish Debate

, , Comment Closed

There is an old American saying:  if you have nothing to say, wrap yourself up in the American flag and recite the constitution.  In Ireland, today, if a politician, a political party, has nothing to say, no new ideas to advance, then call for tax cuts.  The current deluge of leaks in the media about impending tax cuts are not evidence of sources having something to say; it is evidence of how the debate over future economic and social strategy has been turned into a desert.

And what tax is being hammered?  The most efficient, transparent, potentially progressive tax we have – a tax that even an army of accountants acting on behalf of the rich can’t get around:  the Universal Social Charge.  It is called a hated tax, an unfair tax, an anti-entrepreneurial tax.  Everything that is wrong with our income tax system is blamed on the USC whereas the reality is that the USC has the potential to repair much that is wrong with our income tax system, distorted and misshapen by the myriad of reliefs, allowances and exemptions – most of which benefit high-income groups.

People have been put under pressure from the tax increases during the period of recession.  It was irrational to reduce people’s take-home pay when economic growth was falling, wages were being cut in real terms, working hours and income supports (e.g. Child Benefit) were being cut.  Between 2008 and 2012, the effective tax rate rose by 30 percent.  This was a major contributor to lengthening and deepening the recession.

Today, however, the issue is not ‘high taxation’; it is that people’s living standards are low by EU-15 standards.  The debate over cutting taxes, however, shows how incapable political parties are of addressing this issue.  Rather than admit intellectual impotence, they propose tax cuts – which will only exacerbate the very problems they are incapable of addressing. 

Tax Cuts:  Giving More to Those Who Have More

Ireland has one of the highest levels of market inequality in the OECD.  As the recovery becomes embedded we are in danger of accelerating this trend.

Read Post →


The need to clarify the left on budget deficits – confusions of so called ‘Keynesianism’


This article was originally published in the Socialist Economic Bulletin on Monday, the 14th of September.

John McDonnell, the new Shadow Chancellor, has created something of a stir by his firm opposition to budget deficits to cover current expenditure – writing ‘let me make it absolutely clear that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is committed to eliminating the deficit and creating an economy in which we live within our means.’ The so called ‘Keynesian’ left has attempted to make a point of defending budget deficits, presenting this as a hallmark of the left. These latter views are politically damaging because they are economically false. Neither do they derive from Keynes but from the confused views of academic pro-capitalist economics. John McDonnell is entirely correct on this point to oppose borrowing to cover current expenditure over the course of the business cycle.

The following article, originally published as ‘A damaging confusion in Western economics books – which followers of Keynes and Marx should correct’ deals with this issue from a fundamental economic point of view. A more comprehensive treatment of the issue, presented in a less technical fashion, can be found in my article‘Deng Xiaoping and John Maynard Keynes’.

Hopefully John McDonnell’s firm stance on the budget deficit will help the left to adopt the positions of Keynes and Marx and abandon the confused ideas on budget deficits that were wrongly presented under the name of ‘Keynesianism’.

Read Post →