Just read @evgenymorozov's piece for @NewLeftReview on socialism and the calculation debate. Lots to agree with. Non-market planning does not have to take place at an all-knowing centre. It can be a function of widespread, egalitarian civic deliberation. newleftreview.org/issues/II116/a…
It's important to grasp the implications of this. Establishing an economic system that prioritises social need over the profit motive entails a programme of constitutional reform - ultimately it requires a new state form, in which civic participation is much more extensive.
The current order is supported by a vast effort of ideological persuasion through advertising, journalism, entertainment etc. - a legitimating background that sustains what exists and heads off alternatives. We are left looking for bargains on a burning planet.
This work of legitimation is held tightly in the hands of the few. Our task is to create fora of democratic deliberation that can make the capitalist order into an object of steady contemplation, and break the limits imposed on social reason.
These fora must have a constitutional character - they must be part of the state form. One way to think of them is as a revival of the assembly form in modern conditions - institutions and powers that permit collective sense-making.
New technology has an important part to play in 'articulating the assembly' , making high quality deliberation at scale possible. It isn't enough on its own, but it can be harnessed to the work of democratisation.
At the moment the state-media combine individualises and disorients us. The work of reform resides in establishing ourselves as citizens who make sense of current conditions and shape the future *together*.
(This will mean re-making the bureaucracy, too, so that its first loyalty is to the assembled citizen body, rather than to elected representatives. The model civil servant becomes the Machiavelli of The Discourses on Livy, not the Machiavelli of The Prince.)
Establishing socialism is in large part a practical matter of constitutional design; #mediareform and a post-capitalist political economy are indivisibly linked. Read this, in other words: newsocialist.org.uk/the-constituti…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the new NS podcast the team discuss a focus group in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, made up of Conservative to Labour switchers. One presenter, the one who doubted Corbyn had much of a personal vote in Islington, was "a bit taken aback at how punchy and disappointed they were."
It's striking that a political journalist needs to go to a structured focus group to find out what people outside Westminster are feeling. But I suppose this reflects the existing balance of power: voters are a background feature in a drama with only a handful of speaking parts.
Marr noted that politics outside Westminster was different, and that Burnham and Sarwar are more interesting and self-assured than most Cabinet members. But the podcast was 100% Westminster-brained, in that its premise was that 20224 Con-Lab switchers were key.
In my self-appointed capacity as a purveyor of lukewarm takes I have now read That Article. What stands out is the intense focus of the Labour right on media and communications ... 🧵 theguardian.com/politics/2024/…
McSweeney seems to have understood that trusted independent left media posed an existential threat to the right's attempt to regain control: if members understood who the Labour right were, and what they wanted, the game would be up.
According to @AnushkaAsthana "they took aim at news websites they considered to be either alt-left or alt-right, including, perhaps not surprisingly, the Canary." She says their campaign had a material impact on that outlet, forcing them to become "much leaner."
Politicians can say anything to a nodding journalist, no matter how insultingly stupid and misleading, as long as they use a mind-numbingly banal analogy from daily life to do it. Nation's credit card? Sure. Under the bonnet? Yeah, sounds about right.
A great deal of media culture consists of projecting their own inability to grasp basic concepts onto their audiences: rather than explain how parties interact with the state, which would require thought, they happily go along with framing that is simple, familiar and wrong.
Haha, the public don't care about x! (when x is something that's extremely important, that can only shore up oligarchic power in a formally democratic system when people have no idea what x is, and only have brain dead analogies to go on when they turn to the media to find out.)
Labour's plans to use public-private partnerships for new infrastructure will create endless chokepoints for rent extraction for large investment funds, raising the cost of living for the rest of us, for no other reason than a reflexive desire to serve the rich. As in health ...
... if the workers and the materials exist, we can afford to do it: the means create the money and there is not reason to cede ownership of vital infrastructure. It's a political choice that the Greens, the Social Campaign Group and the rest of the left should loudly reject.
And anyone with an ounce of integrity who has railed against Conservative malfeasance and corruption should do the same. The question 'who owns Britain?' ought to be central to our politics for the next five years.
Just thinking about servility in capitalism when I saw this. If you "dig under the surface" of "centrist dad" as a term of abuse, I'd say it's about having one's opinions shaped - unknowingly - so they're consistent with a relatively privileged place in the social order.
A "centrist dad" is a product of domination, inasmuch as he doesn't know why he believes what he believes. There are plenty of liberal capitalists (some with children!) who understand what they are, how it relates to their beliefs. But the centrist dad is made as if from outside.
If we fear the patriarch because he is a clear-eyed tyrant, we're tempted to despise the centrist dad because he doesn't know what he is, while managing to be incredibly smug about everything.
A month ago I was wondering out loud why the British establishment converged on austerity after 2008 and whether it was part of a coherent class project to protect capital from a population that might have drawn dangerous conclusions from the collapse of economic orthodoxy.
While warbling about the role of the Treasury I was gently prompted by @aerondavis to read his book on the Treasury, and I did. It's well worth a look. I don't think we can yet say for sure whether the Treasury in the 2010s was as clear-eyed as it was in the 1920s.
(For one thing we won't have access to the files for 30 years, assuming nothing untoward happens. The kinds of eye-watering memoranda that Clara Mattei unearthed will be under wraps for a while yet.)