theeconomist:

Tomorrow’s cover today: people are right to be angry. But it is also right to be worried about where populism could take politics.

It was only a matter time before the vaunted “end of history” thesis faced more than a conceptual challenge from theorists and political economists. Have no illusions, the greater capitalist system is currently embroiled in a struggle for its continued legitimacy, and unless the system’s most energized and prosperous militants and beneficiaries concede some meaningful measure of political and economic territory, they run the risk of upsetting capitalism to the benefit of no one. Let me begin by taking the wind/hot air out of the sails of radicals who, for better or for worse, foresee an end to capitalism. That’s not going to happen. The capitalist mode of production is to entrenched and productive to simply be jettisoned in favour of something else. However, the expansive framework that grew and was consciously built around it will undoubtedly see parts of it shaken to their very foundations.Things like the idea of corporate personhood, regulatory panopticism (the so-called night watchman state and self-regulation) and anti-regulation (regulations that enshrine an opposition to regulation), runaway spending on state force, and government and state action that intervenes in society for the benefit of promoting the interests of the so-called 1%. These and similar “neo-liberal” ideological strongholds will face highly disruptive challenges, and not because of the direct influence of the Occupy movement.Save for crypto-plutocrats, the “vanishing middle-class” is a common point of contention across all ideological lines. Once dismissed as a baseless tin-foil hat preoccupation of post-marxism socialists and social democrats, today not one single electable political party can afford to ignore this now mainstream concern. However, all commonalities begin and end here when we start to consider the different levers proposed by these parties. The Economist is right to warn against populism, but we mustn’t conflate populism with deepening democracy, as the newspaper’s anonymous editors so often do.

theeconomist:

Tomorrow’s cover today: people are right to be angry. But it is also right to be worried about where populism could take politics.

It was only a matter time before the vaunted “end of history” thesis faced more than a conceptual challenge from theorists and political economists. Have no illusions, the greater capitalist system is currently embroiled in a struggle for its continued legitimacy, and unless the system’s most energized and prosperous militants and beneficiaries concede some meaningful measure of political and economic territory, they run the risk of upsetting capitalism to the benefit of no one.

Let me begin by taking the wind/hot air out of the sails of radicals who, for better or for worse, foresee an end to capitalism. That’s not going to happen. The capitalist mode of production is to entrenched and productive to simply be jettisoned in favour of something else. However, the expansive framework that grew and was consciously built around it will undoubtedly see parts of it shaken to their very foundations.

Things like the idea of corporate personhood, regulatory panopticism (the so-called night watchman state and self-regulation) and anti-regulation (regulations that enshrine an opposition to regulation), runaway spending on state force, and government and state action that intervenes in society for the benefit of promoting the interests of the so-called 1%. These and similar “neo-liberal” ideological strongholds will face highly disruptive challenges, and not because of the direct influence of the Occupy movement.

Save for crypto-plutocrats, the “vanishing middle-class” is a common point of contention across all ideological lines. Once dismissed as a baseless tin-foil hat preoccupation of post-marxism socialists and social democrats, today not one single electable political party can afford to ignore this now mainstream concern. However, all commonalities begin and end here when we start to consider the different levers proposed by these parties.

The Economist is right to warn against populism, but we mustn’t conflate populism with deepening democracy, as the newspaper’s anonymous editors so often do.

  1. gazetaoriental reblogged this from theeconomist
  2. elite-singapore-escorts-7 reblogged this from theeconomist
  3. dmg30549bb reblogged this from theeconomist
  4. selfdefense-for-josephine reblogged this from theeconomist
  5. weddingsselect reblogged this from theeconomist
  6. turf-suppliers-newcastle reblogged this from theeconomist
  7. beibeidistrict reblogged this from theeconomist
  8. oxblood-ruffin reblogged this from theeconomist
  9. kreditwuerdigkeit reblogged this from theeconomist
  10. hannahthecatalyst reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    #occupywallstreet
  11. futilityofignorance reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    I will always be FOR Capitalism, but yes, this country needs financial reform. But both Democrats and Republicans are...
  12. anindiscriminatecollection reblogged this from theeconomist
  13. cybercomplex reblogged this from theeconomist
  14. romanticnovel reblogged this from theeconomist
  15. iamyouandyouarei reblogged this from theeconomist
  16. hulk----smash reblogged this from theeconomist
  17. thisblogcouldbeyourlife reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    It was only a matter time before the vaunted “end of history” thesis faced more than a conceptual challenge from...
  18. andreucastellano reblogged this from theeconomist
  19. sgelf reblogged this from slightlypretentious
  20. silas216 reblogged this from theeconomist
  21. liketherazor reblogged this from theeconomist
  22. trss reblogged this from theeconomist and added:
    Tomorrow’s cover today: people are right to be angry. But it is also right to be worried about where populism could take...
  23. sohey reblogged this from theeconomist
  24. mmanal reblogged this from theeconomist
  25. theeconomist posted this