What we have is government (“governance”) by the owners of the transnational corporations. To produce a different outcome, government has to be recaptured by national political governments who answer to voters; rather than answer to shareholders.

Neoliberalism – stripped of its cloaking ideology of “free markets” – is neo-feudal rule by owners of the corporate oligopolies that own the productive economy (industry); the commercial economy (global transportation and buying-selling of goods); and the money system (commercial banks who create the payments money in the form of bank deposits; and the globally-integrated central-commercial banking system that operates the payments system).

The first step toward political government regaining some governing power, is for governments to gain some power of money issuance. At present, governments issue interest-bearing bond debts and sell them to primary dealer commercial banks who create new spendable bank deposit account balances (bank deposits – which is our main form of money) in the government’s commercial bank deposit accounts to “pay for” the banks’ purchases of the government’s bond debts, which are the banks’ interest-earning assets.

If governments gain some power over money issuance, then all socially and economically beneficial reforms will be possible. As long as the commercial banks’ monopoly of money supply issuance — as repayable loans of bank deposits to private sector loan account debtors and to government bond debtors — stands: no beneficial reforms will be “affordable”.

In the tradition of monetary system reformers since Irving Fisher, I described how this could be done in a book I just published on Amazon: The Money Problem and How to Fix It.

A well argued contribution. I should like to suggest one addition. After “redistribution of wealth” add “and power”.

The way history is uncannily echoing the 20th C these days perhaps ‘new’ social democrats might sadly once again have the opportunity to help lead the mass of people into the slaughterhouse, betray socialist insurrectionaries, and participate passively or actively in the return of extreme, non-democratic right wing regimes. Why do we never learn?

However, I think that the words ‘populist/populism’ could benefit from a bit of analysis by self-proclaimed ‘progressives’as to why such ‘populist’ policies are ‘popular’. I think that a fair number of the left ‘thinkers’ are intellectually arrogant and, at best, condescending towards people who are attracted by so-called ‘populist’ ideas.

Separately, Mr Mason refers to a ‘motley tribal alliance’ as possibly the way forward in putting in place something to replace neoliberalism. I think the language is perhaps self-defeatingly disparaging. We do need a union of groups coming from the various ‘issues’ which he identified – feminist, ecologist, cosmopolitan nationalist etc.

The big stumbling block is the predominant tribalism of the Labour Party. Labour members still see themselves as the only way to ‘nirvana’ and that all other parties should ‘come to their senses’ and join Labour and they might well get some of the things they are hoping for. This was the bombast behind Mr Owen Jones recent admonition/order to the Green party. It was on show at this weekends Scottish Labour Party Conference (which could not even spell Keir Hardie’s name correctly). Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell are tribalist to the marrow.

Until Labour can examine itself and hold out the hand of comradeship to anyone other than the Tories (you think I am joking? Look at Labour’s best friends during the Scottish referendum. Where did all those votes that elected Tory MSPs and MPs come from?) and recognise that these parties have sincere and valid lines of argument the better. Sadly, I think that Mrs May will support independence for Scotland, Wales and the reunification of Ireland before Labour’s tribal arrogance will subside.

Improvements in workplace rights and the return of public services to public control are welcome in the short term. As human workers are replaced by robots and control of many activities, including those same public services, are ceded to AIs what will have been gained? If we look at Amazon and the fuss about working conditions there, we should realise that the model used by Amazon in their warehouses is perfectly good, it is just designed for robots, not humans. Because Amazon, like most companies, is controlled by money people, they see that for the moment human workers are still cheaper than robots, so they employ humans as robots. The solution will come soon, not by improving conditions for the humans but by replacing them by the robots for whom the system was designed.

The way that the elite will maintain their position in the future will be by their control of technology and information and, as always, by the fragmentation of opposition. We see this happening already as net neutrality disappears and our personal information becomes someone else’s marketable property. UBI, or some equivalent, is a fine idea that could help promote equality but is most likely to be introduced as a means of maintaining a docile population of consumers. We will not see any major change without a really radical redistribution of wealth and the use of technology to ensure that it becomes impossible for new elites to form. There will still be plenty of scope for enterprise and entrepreneurs. It may well be that Elon Musk is the best person to send spaceships to Mars, but it should be as the head of a public body with public oversight and because he proves himself as the most suitable candidate, not because he had a good idea and took our money by overcharging for services in order to spend at his whim with no oversight or control.

If we want to be able to change our countries, we must find ways to help find solution to this crisis, help solve the environmental crisis set off by global warming in these countries, promote effectively a more just political and economical system, appease conflicts… The task is immense and I wish I had an idea how to begin it, but I don’t. I’m not supporting any specific approach in particular, and I totally
agree that international bodies, dominated by national politics
determined, as of today, by special interests and a neoliberal mindset,
are probably not the right tools to begin the job. All I know is that any collective reflection on how to change politics in our countries should include also these aspects, otherwise it’s doomed to fail.

I think you are supporting an ‘internationalist’ approach, which requires strengthening bodies like the UN and the many ‘third sector’ organisations through which they undertake much of their work. It also means making these bodies much more transparent, accountable and democratic.

But it also means dealing with the freebooting nature of many of the large and powerful nations, like the US at present and like the UK and France in earlier eras.

However, the authority to do that derives from the politics of individual states, which in many cases are the preserve of a few, such as the financial sector of the City of London – an international, indeed, stateless, confederation, if ever there was one. This requires the greater redistribution of power throughout each individual country, embodying the principle of subsidiarity.

So, as I indicated in my first post, I think that any policies from social democratic parties (perhaps, including Labour) have to put political and constitutional reform at the heart of a range of policies.

As he spends a good part of the article criticising those who say just that, that would be a curious conclusion. I certainly cannot see anything in the article which suggests what you say. And I certainly don’t see him suggesting curtailing freedom of movement as you suggest. Indeed, it is not clear that Corbyn did that in his Dundee speech either. In fact, nothing about Labour’s position on freedom of movement and the single market is clear – but that is outwith the scope of this article.

Interesting to se this article appear at the same time as Corbyn’s speech to the Scottish Labour Party conference yesterday. Both appear to be pulling back from the internationalist solidarity of the left Labour movement of the past 50 years. Mason seems to be arguing that the only way to defeat the racist, protectionist right is to give ground to them by this “limited reassertion of national economic sovereignty”. Markets free from the chains of protectionism and embracing the free movement of labour is the best way to redistribute wealth from the privileged to the poor. This is not limited to national economies but it is the best path to tackling international inequality and poverty. A revealing quote from Corbyn’s Scottish Labour conference speech is: “Theresa May’s only clear priority … seemed to be to tie the UK permanently to EU rules, which are used to drive privatisation and block support for British industry”. By “Tying the UK to EU rules” and “supporting British industry”, I presume he is talking about national protectionism and subsidising the industries that provide the union base that support the Labour Party. In his speech, Corbyn claimed: “We cannot be held back inside or outside the EU from taking the steps we need to develop and invest in cutting edge industries and local business to stop the tide of privatisation and outsourcing” “Or from preventing employers being able to import cheap agency labour [immigrants] , to undercut existing pay and conditions in the name of free market orthodoxy”. This blaming of immigrants rather than focusing on the corrupt companies who exploit that labour with the full support of the establishment parties (including Labour), is straight from the book of Farage and Trump. It would have been applauded at any UKIP conference. Corbyn and McDonnell have said on a number of occasions that they want out of the Customs Union and the Single Market to allow them to begin to subsidise UK industry, again. Their natural instinct is of protectionism and the hardest of Brexits.

This is the final struggle
Let us group together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race.

As an afterthought, the word “populism” has been twisted into a pejorative, now used by the neoliberals to describe popularity amongst the working classes. If you mean fascism, racism, nazism, sexism or conservatism, then don’t be afraid to use the words. The elites, particularly the Westminster establishment are corrupt, stating this does not make you “populist”, neither does criticising the billionaire media owners or the state broadcaster, the BBC.

Despite its failure for so many, the mainstream media substantially pump out the same message. In opinion polls, the Tories are still neck and neck with Labour and, a fair tranche of Labour MPs are still in the neoliberal camp.

Undoubtedly, neoliberalism has failed the majority and wrought havoc on the environment, but, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are still alive.

Yes. That’s crucial, Alasdair. The strategy of the neoliberal project has been to irreversibly undermine democracy in favour of the market. We need to push back in the opposite direction – only harder.

I have read this only once, and will revisit it on several occasions, both to deepen my own comprehension of the arguments (whether I agree, will follow that!) and in response to the comments of other posters, which, for the last essay was constructive.

Two things from this first reading:

1. The need to strengthen government and the rule of law: the neoliberals mounted a strong attack on the state and have been quite successful in reducing its power to bring them under control in the interests of the majority. Given the growth of private security firms and the propensity of the ‘right’ (this is a shorthand, and an inadequate one) to violence, it is important that the governmental authorities (national and local) have sufficiently powerful, but civic controlled police and armed forces.

2. The need to devolve power to localities within nation states and to make democracy more participative and transparent. As someone who supports independence for Scotland, one of my strongest reasons for that is to have the powers in the hands of those of us who live in Scotland (irrespective of place of origin, gender, race, religious belief, etc – Alex Salmond’s ‘civic nationalism’) to make decisions which best suit the local conditions within an international context. Even if Scotland were not to become independent – perish the thought! – nor Ireland to be reunited and Wales to make its own decision, I think that Labour has to develop constitutional policies which legally and irreversibly (i.e. only with non-coerced agreement) devolve power to local levels. It has to facilitate the emergence of a generous and humane concept of ‘England’ and how that England is to be governed in relationship with the other three nations.