Going through my old papers, I recovered my old research notes from the time I studied economics on the accredited masters at the University of Keele. I was called away to do philosophy at doctoral level at Manchester before I could complete the degree. I left economics because I saw it as politics and ethics rationalized as science. It's a worthy subject, though, and I took it as a good grounding in political economy and practical reason. And I think my judgements hold up well a quarter of a century on. I made the case for a Europe-wide social market economy as against the liberal market. I argued that the globalisation of economic relations called for a concomitant political globalisation. At the same time, I recognized that the forces for liberalisation, privatisation, and financialisation would in all likelihood prove too strong for the attempts at international re-regulation, meaning that the European Union - as it was to become - would effectively become a liberal market implementing a competition policy. The principal agents in this liberal market would be the transnational corporations, global agents with global priorities and a global reach. That would leave the EU unable to implement an industrial strategy - even if it could identify a specifically European capital as its object. The result would be a competition policy within an austerian monetarist straightjacket. I also noted the democratic deficit and uneven development at the heart of the process of European integration, something which in time would provoke a revanchism of the regions, even nations. Having set out the case for the social market in the second volume, I note the obstacles standing in its way with respect to the TNC's and the financialisation and liberalisation of the global economy. The third and fourth volumes locate the problem in the capital system as a fundamentally irresponsible and subjectless anarchy of production. The globalisation of capitalist relations demands a concomitant globalisation of political authority and control which the capital system cannot, ultimately, deliver. I end by arguing for socialism as the only political form capable of establishing a global planning authority on the basis of democratic social control.
Vol 1 The Integration of the European Community
"This thesis concerns European and international economics and, although special effort has been made to avoid the use of technical jargon, presumes a degree of prior knowledge of economic theory. That said, this thesis recognises that economics proceeds within a political context. In contradistinction to academic economists, this thesis treats economics as more something much more than a positive science, adopting a holistic approach in which institutions, interests and perceptions are considered to play a creative role in the economic process. The thesis has a strong policy orientation, particularly with respect to industrial strategy, although it does address more theoretical issues. The thesis is meant as a contribution to the debate concerning the nature and future development of the European economy within the wider internationalisation of the global economy. This thesis examines a range of issues raised on the topic of European industry and economy, organising the material according to a thematic structure, which is designed to give continuity and coherence to the argument. The question of theory and method is addressed at the outset, followed by applied analysis with respect to the problems facing industry in the European economy and in the global economy generally. The opening chapters therefore formulate the theoretical and conceptual apparatus that is applied throughout the rest of the thesis. The argument proceeds to analyse key aspects of European industry in the context of an increasingly globalised environment. Having discussed problems and prospects, the thesis draws some conclusions and identifies the key elements of a solution."
Vol 2 The Social Market
"This volume continues to develop the themes outlined in the previous volume concerning the way in which the necessity of an industrial policy is constrained by the emergence of supra-national economic forces.The argument demonstrates the extent to which E.C. competition policy and the SEM programme run in a contrary direction to the idea of an industrial strategy. The achievement of the SEM restricts government intervention and therefore blocks the possibility of developing the regulatory framework necessary for an EC wide industrial strategy. The thesis therefore argues that the process of EC integration is inherently flawed and will shift Europe more towards the deregulated US model and away from the flexibly coordinated systems more in keeping with the European tradition. The bulk of the focus in this volume falls on the Rhenish-Scandinavian models of the social market economy. These models are shown to combine greater levels of economic efficiency and social justice and equality than the liberal economies of the US and UK."
Vol 3 Transnational Monopoly Capitalism
This volume re-engages with the theoretical debates broached in parts of the first two volumes with respect to the centralisation and concentration of capital. The critical focus is upon the transnational corporations and the transnationalisation of capital as the prime mechanisms of the inherent tendency to centralisation and concentration in the global economy. The few hundred transnational corporations which dominate global production and trade prove the truth of Marx's adage that one capitalist kills many. This volume examines the complex and many-sided nature of the power of capital, of capital in itself but most particularly in relation to both labour and the state. The argument is concerned to highlight the normative as well as the material aspects of the power of power. Whilst it would seem obvious that the structural power of capital is decisive, this underestimates the need to organise and manufacture consent and legitimacy. It also underestimates the power of alternative forces to challenge and even subvert the power of capital. The normative aspect is central in explaining not only the rise of transnational firms, but their privileging with respect to 'national' business, labour and government.
Vol 4 The Economics of Peace, Freedom, and Justice
Global economic activity has increased dramatically since the Second World War. The principal agents of this globalisation have been the TNCs. Most importantly, the TNCs have been major players in the growth industries and leading sectors of the long post-war boom and their central presence in what is now a global economy has fundamentally altered the terms on which individual economies can be run. The failure to devise appropriate supra-national political institutions capable of dealing with the TNC’s at an appropriate level of power and competence means that there is an imbalance in the global economy, generating increasing tension between the local and global, particularly in terms of economic and political interests. For Marx, a social order only sets itself such problems as it can solve. This means that any alternative is already immanent in existing lines of development. If human beings only make history in given circumstances, then Marx nevertheless points out these circumstances are also in large part human social creations. The key to resisting the current hegemony of neo-liberalism lies in examining existing society as a field of materialist potential and futurity.
Although research notes written up in readable form, Industry and Europe is my first 'book.' I put it here as a celebration of twenty five years writing. The book is 762 pages and 269,879 words and covers a lot of topics within the broad theme of industrial policy and strategy in a globalised economic environment. One thing I noted, as I quickly 'edited,' is the critique of current trends in leftist politics. I know for a fact that I had criticized postmodernism and poststructuralism in my later doctoral work. I thought identity politics the dissolution of the Left as a political and intellectual force oriented around universal themes and principles. In passing, I made precisely that criticism in this work. I fundamentally stand by it. I saw the dangers then. On pages 454-55 I write this:
‘In The Twilight of Common Dreams, Todd Gitlin asks: ‘What is a Left if it is not, plausibly at least, the voice of the whole people? .. If there is no people, but only peoples, there is no Left’ (Gitlin 1995:165). Whereas for the Left freedom is a collective project that embraces all people according to a universal identity, identity politics pertains more to different ‘peoples’, seeking emancipation with respect to particular issues of race, ethnicity, sex and gender. There is no necessary reason why emancipation in these terms should be incompatible with the aims of transnational capital. Quite the contrary, the increasing participation of women into the work force and the increasing use of migrant labour – largely unorganised, often low paid and casual, usually lacking in social and environmental protection – indicate the extent to which identity politics is quite compatible with transnational capital and may even complement it.
In this respect, identity politics on the political Left is the counterpart of economic neo-liberalism on the political Right. The old collective goods and solidarities of traditional conservatism – church and state, family and community, national interest – and socialism – working class struggle, trade unions and cooperatives, class interest – are giving way to a libertarianism of a new right and a libertarianism of a new left, both of which are congruent with the cultural conditions and requirements of a globally mobile capital. The Left in politics is defined above all by the commitment to social justice and equality as universal values. The Left is universalist or it is not at all. The Left cannot base itself on identity politics since its values and its goals are universal, addressing all on account of their common humanity rather than some sections of the people on account of being something particular. It would appear that the contemporary reconstitution of the political Left around identity politics is part of a process by which transnationalism creates a politics and a culture in its own image, shifting perspectives away from struggles concerning economic issues, class and exploitation, towards cultural issues of identity and lifestyle, away from production and work towards consumption and leisure.
The advantage of such a politics to transnational capital is obvious, forming a parallel in the political sphere to the pliable, unorganised and controllable workers in the sphere of production. It is a form of political disarmament which serves to protect transnational capital from political controversy, challenge and change as it dismantles political and social codes, restrictions and protections of all kinds all over the world.’
Peter Critchley, Industry and Europe, 1995: 454-55
That, I would add, is an awful lot of wasted time. The only question to be answered in this respect is whether the Left in politics went this way because, as conservative critics argue, it lost the socio-economic struggle with the capital system and had nowhere else to go. The proletariat are neither revolutionary nor socialist but, with a stake in the system, are content to settle for a decent standard of living in the present rather than risk all for the vagaries of socialist promises of a future plenitude (still less for environmentalist demands for austerity). That's not my view, I hasten to add. But I do remember the first paper I had marked at Keele. I tore the capital system apart on any number of grounds, to be cautioned that if capitalism really were so weak it would have fallen decades ago. I would argue that the disappearance of the Left into the decadent idealism and culturalism of identity politics stems from the abandonment of the socio-economic terrain, a tacit recognition that the practical case for socialism has proven a lot harder than ideologues recognized and that the working class is not the revolutionary class subject of marxist theory. Those committed to the revolutionary ideal retain the object but discard the subject. As a democrat, I retain the subject. One way lies bureaucratisation, the other democratisation.