Yesterday morning, in writing my intro to Paul Knaggs’s skewering of one instantiation of the heartless idiocies of Team Starmer, I picked up on Mr Knaggs having quoted Naomi Klein’s splendid work:
I can’t recommend Shock Doctrine too highly. It rides the opposing pulls of lucidity and reader engagement on the one hand, the impeccably documented on the other, and is the best primer I know on how neoliberalism conquered the world despite its trail of immiseration wherever it goes – which, sadly, is pretty much every corner of the planet.
That evening, in a Q & A towards the end of a two hour video I’ll feature tomorrow, of Danny Haiphong and a Ben Norton in exceptionally lucid form on the most important economist of our time – I mean Michael Hudson of course, though he isn’t named until the end – a viewer asked Ben for his opinion on a woman half my age.
Professor Clara Mattei, who speaks American with a Latinate accent and tones of ringing clarity, is Director of the Center for Heterodox Economics at Oklahoma’s University of Tulsa. Here she is, two years ago. Where Naomi’s approach is that of a radical liberal, Clara’s is unmistakeably Marxist. And where Naomi’s axe is essentially journalistic, Clara’s is academic.
Both are superb communicators who in their very different ways have shone gigawatt beams on the nature and origins of the most speciously toxic ideology of our time. You’ve met Ms Klein – if not, why not? Now try sixteen minutes thirty-three of Prof Mattei on the subject of neoliberal “austerity”.
* * *
It would be interesting to see if the analysis of the content of the book being described covers the post WW2 period up to the early-mid 1970’s when that austerity of the 1920’s and 1930’s went into reverse for a period in which wages rose, social security nets from health and education through to pensions and unemployment benefits were increased in comparative terms to the 20’s-30’s, and full employment (for a given value of ‘full employment’) enabled Conservative Patriarch’s like MacMillan to point out that we had never had it so good’.
Because on the basis of this short clip it seems reasonable to surmise that the author is essentially implying that we have had just over a century of unbroken austerity.
I might very well have to bite the bullet and buy this book (if only to keep my bank balance below £16k) just to work out how this fits in with Hudson’s thesis. Because right now I’m struggling to reconcile this definition of capitalism with that of Hudson’s.
It’s less that her assessment contradicts Michael’s; more that her silence on imperialism enables the two pundits to pass like ships in the night. The ability of ruling classes in the richest nations to buy off labour discontent with crumbs from the imperial table enabled the period of “butskellism” you have in mind.
(That allowed the welfarism and near full employment you allude to. What made those things expedient – as discussed in What is to be done? – was the existence of the Soviet Union.)
I noted Clara’s silence on empire but see it as an omission in this case not fatal to an analysis of great accuracy delivered with aplomb. Which may explain why our fellow Hudson admirer, Ben Norton, voiced his own approval in that Q & A which led me to her door.
*
PS speaking of doors – and that Starmer-Reeves trigger of £16k – I’ve adopted a similar strategy to yours, cunningly staying below its threshold by lashing out £9.99 on Stephen Keen’s assault on fellow economists. (His being another name to surface in that Q & A.) 87 months ago, to mark the 500th anniversary, I opened a post on the Reformation with Luther’s nailing – fact or fiction who cares? – of his “grievances” to a chapel door at Wittenberg Cathedral, so was much taken with this:
I’m sure the purchase will add spit ‘n shine to the assessment delivered BTL my previous post. In response to a comment professing ignorance of economics I’d replied:
And if it doesn’t? Well, there’s still that £16k ceiling to consider.
At the risk of disrupting your carefully thought out personal finance strategy Phil I could lend you the book tomorrow. It’s good, though I have to confess I haven’t finished it.
Which one Bryan? Keen I have on my kindle.
I have Clara Mattei’s The capital Order
Here is a more recent interview with her ( one year ago)
https://youtu.be/IYXnfufDLz0?si=r1YTy9lXwbsvFt-g
With reference to ‘how?’ she is firmly in the camp of educating, exposing the myths of TINA. All good stuff but still, I feel falls in the ‘insight is necessary but insufficient on its own to effect change’ box.
As to Dave’s querying how the post war (WW2) period fits into her austerity theorising she is helpfully working on a book entitled ‘The Golden Hour’ which reassesses the so called golden age of capitalism 1945 – 1975. Unhelpfully it is ‘forthcoming’ – but if her first book is anything to go by it will be meticulously researched and referenced – so worth waiting for.
Thanks Bryan – this is useful. And I see Clara has the endorsement of another great economist. Up there with Michael Hudson is Richard Wolff, her interlocutor in the half-hour podcast you linked to. Haven’t watched yet but the BTL comments are glowing.