Who Are You Calling Stupid, Stupid?
Oct 13th, 2011 by Donagh
‘progressive’ is a word that I hate to see used these days. It’s meaningless. On the face of it I understand it to mean someone who is generally pointing in a positive direction without trying to get into how the ‘progressive’ individual stands on knotty issues. So we don’t know what ideology they espouse or if they think capitalism is a good thing, on the whole or not. It’s easier to contrast them to a ‘regressive’, who is characterised as someone who wants to gets kids from poor families into the workplace sooner, probably as chimney sweeps, although they’ll settle for interns (although joking aisde Jobsbridge probably has a chimney sweep internship program) and are willing to force people on modest incomes to sell their internal organs before going into hospital to cover medical expenses.
Anyway I have heard Michael O’Sullivan described as ‘progressive’, so I presume I’m expected to be grateful to him for fighting the good fight, and pointing out the blindinly obvious on Prime Time when going head-to-head with Dan O’Brien or some other poster child regressive.
I mention Michael O’Sullivan because he has an article in the latest edition of (spits) The Dublin Review of Books. The reason why the Dublin Review of Books tries to emulate the name of the London Review of Books, it seems, is to get some of that middle class cache the LRB has with an Irish book-reading, university educated audience, although being co-edited by someone from the Irish Times means its actually more conservative. The LRB after all publishes Zizek! Perry Anderson!! Tariq Ali!!! and lots of other continental philosophy, end-of-ideology snot-bags. But the DRB publishes Michael O’Sullivan.
I don’t recommend it. In fact its worse than I originally thought - because I skipped to the middle rather than reading the whole thing from the beginning. It’s a bad habit but as a result I came across a point I almost agreed with:
“It is not hard to see how Irish people’s previously positive view of the EU could change. But the apparently widespread notion that our vast national debt exists because of a desire by the EU to protect French and German banks is a delusion.
Ireland, its banks, property oligarchs and policy-makers are culpable of creating an asset price bubble that rivalled the Japanese property boom of the 1980s and the Mississippi Scheme and South Sea bubbles of 1720. Our remedy in the aftermath of this bubble was to ensnare the state in the debt of Irish banks and then to wander aimlessly into the arms of the EU bailout package.”
Well, the EU is in effect protecting French and German banks. The EU know that banks will resist recapitalisation because to accept it will require them to completely open their books. The reaction so far from the banks to the idea of recapitalisation is that it would rather sell assets and reduce lending then be recapitalised. But its not the full story and so his second point is worth emphasising.
Noonan apparently quiped that he was thinking of having T-Shirts printed with the phrase ‘Ireland is not Greece’. This was supposed to plant the idea that Ireland is in a much better position. Greece’s problems we are told are due to government overspending, clientism, getting Goldman Sachs to refinance infrastructure loans and so on. So it was due to investing in infrastructure, creating jobs and increasing wages in the public sector while at the same time doing absolutely nothing about taxation.
Ireland’s debt on the other hand is due to ‘banks, property oligarchs and policy-makers’ creating a speculative asset price bubble which when it burst left the banks and property magnates with huge debts. The reason we have large a national debt now is because this was made into a state liability.
So yeah, Ireland is not Greece.
But then Michael O’Sullivan says:
“Complacency, greed and bad policy-making are the root causes of our plight and that needs to be faced up to.”
Dreadful, dreadful stuff. But it worse when I looked at the bits I’d skipped:
The easy success of the “good times” meant that policy-making lacked real stimulus and rigour, at least from the political level. Economic policy went no deeper than “if I have it I will spend it” while our foreign policy has not extended itself beyond a reverence for institutions like the EU and an adherence to the limp analytical framework of “Boston or Berlin”. Strategy has consistently been our weak point and as a result our independence has been damaged. This shortcoming is systemic, and can be seen in sectors other than banking, such as hospital management or the relationship between Church and state.
There are two strands to our lack of preparedness. One is a simple lack of quality in institutions and a near total absence of strategic thinking among politicians. The other is a blind willingness to accept the gifts of outsiders as a means of supporting our economy, with little thought as to the consequences of this policy. Two examples stand out. One is the very successful attraction of mainly US multinationals to Ireland, a side effect of which has been to leave policymakers and capital providers with a blind spot as to the importance of a strong domestic services/industry base. The other has been the ready adoption of the constraints required by the euro-zone, with very little accompanying organisation to deal with the imbalances likely to be produced. In other spheres similar cognitive errors appear. Successive foreign ministers, for example, have declared that the UN is the cornerstone of Irish foreign policy, an intellectual cut and paste that has saved them the trouble of crafting a distinctive independent policy themselves.
Accepting the wisdom and apparent benevolence of others may help us in the short term but it limits our independence and sustains intellectual laziness. This passivity may stem from our long colonial past, and perhaps also from the fact that the state grew up during a period (the 1930s to the 1970s) when the world economy was more closed than open. The authoritative account of Ireland up to and beyond this period remains Joe Lee’s Ireland 1912-1985: Politics and Society. In its 630 pages, one quote that stands out is ” … small states must rely heavily on the quality of their strategic thinking to counter their vulnerability to international influence”. Written at the end of the 1980s, this would seem more likely to have been intended as an admonishment than praise of Ireland. Against this backdrop, the growth of the economy from the 1990s onwards might offer some rebuttal of Lee’s view. Even today, in spite of the fog of our debt war, it is possible to find things that “we did right”.
“Intellectual laziness” - He got that right.
However, this was the section that first caught my attention:
“The second weakness facing our economy and something of a long standing puzzle is the troubling mystery of capital misallocation in Ireland. While Irish savers have traditionally been reluctant to provide capital to Irish entrepreneurs they have been willing to risk everything they have (and more) on a speculative asset price bubble. In addition, it is also puzzling that some consumer prices have remained stubbornly high during our recession. Proponents of Ireland’s “economic miracle” point to the relatively high levels of private research and development expenditure in the Irish economy, but the reality is that much of this capital comes from abroad through multinationals. Historically, Irish savers have not been generous providers of seed capital to Irish companies, nor have they been a willing source of secondary capital for research and development. Where they have invested, it has not been well diversified and, though this is a generalisation, has also been speculative. Much of this misdirection of capital has resulted from the poor quality of retail, private and investment banking in Ireland.”
Longstanding puzzle? Well it’s a fierce pancake altogether, to quote the Third Policeman.
The economist and Marxist Michael Perelman has an excellent paper up on his site at the moment. It’s about power and how economists, those who are not Marxist that is, ignore power:
“Part of the training of economists is the development of an instinct to avoid any consideration of power, other than presumptive abuses of government, which interfere with the functioning of markets. In conventional economics, power is reduced to a metaphor. We have the power of the market or the power of competition, but corporate power is nowhere to be found.”
Which goes someway to explain why Michael O’Sullivan is incapable of discussing power dynamics.
Now if only someone would write about how power works in Ireland…
“Now if only someone would write about how power works in Ireland…”
I presume that’s sarcasm?
The problem is not that it’s not written about, but that the narrative it tells is not comforting, and it is ignored or glossed over. Writing from different perspectives, Matt Coopers “Who Really Runs Ireland”, Fintan O’Toole’s “Ship of Fools” and of course yer man whats his name who wrote “Sins of the Father” have all examined this subject. I’m not a crisis-porn fan and haven’t read that many of the other works but you know yourself there’s a mini-industry in presenting the history and fitting it to a critique, not all of them consistent with each other by any means but all with some appeal to different ideological perspectives, so it’s not like anyone can’t find a theory on the abuse of power that appeals to their own worldview. But yet dissent is still a minority interest.
And of course the above is only in relation to the mainstream aspects of opinion formation, and doesn’t address the contribution of web-based commentary, the likes of here, Irish Left Review, CrisisJam, Cedar Lounge etc.
The problem isn’t that the material isn’t out there, it’s that people aren’t absorbing it. They’ll absorb it when it comes wrapped around a brick through their windows maybe, but I’d like to think that narratives can be changed through different methods other than storming the Bastille. Or as well as I should say.
Thanks for the comment LATC. I strongly urge you to read Michael Perelman’s article and then come back to me about whether or not these various commentators on the crisis have talked about power.
My comment ‘if only someone would write about how power works in Ireland’ was a nod to Conor, as he is the only one among those writers you mention, and in indeed in comparison with anyone else who has written a history of the Irish economy, who deals with power. And I don’t say that only because Conor is a friend who I admire and respect. I would say the term ‘abuse of power’ is misleading. Conor and Michael Pereman’s arguments are a critique of power - how it works, not how its ‘misused’. If you don’t have time to read Perelman’s article then I’ll give you a hint: its about class. Fintan O’Toole doesn’t talk about class. Matt Cooper certainly doesn’t. David McWilliams talks about ‘insiders and outsiders’. Marc Coleman listens to the inner bunny rabbit bouncing around in his head.
But if you do have time to read Michael Perelman’s article, and you like it I highly recommend his most recent book “Invisible Handcuffs“. It’s about workers, working conditions, and work itself, which is also something that no one talks about.
Finally, on the web-based commentary. I wouldn’t pat ourselves on the back too much. There is hardly any work done on how power works in Ireland, I mean serious, considered, researched work that will stand up. Conor’s book is a start, but there is a lot more to do.
Donagh, thanks, I will read Perepman’s article. Of course O’Toole and Cooper don’t somment on class, they’re not Marxists, but then neither are 99% of the population. My point was only that however one views or defines “power”, whether form a Marxist or a mainstream perspective, there’s no excuse for anyone out there to ignore it’s influence, and yet they do ignore it, continuously. Whist I agree with your comment on “progressives” to some extent I do think that it’s necessary to broaden the intellectual struggle if you like, because to borrow and invert a phrase from the Occupy movements we are the 1%, they are the 99%, and we can bang on as much as we like about the necessity of a Marxist critique but actually at this point in time really there aren’t that many people listening. That’s not being defeatist, I think that the “outreach” work being done on teh internat and face to face and via vehicles such as Conor’s book and talks is all going in the right direction, as is the Occupy movement and the Claiming Our Future thing and maybe other initiatives, whatever about their woolliness and lack of direction and the possibility of making mistakes. Anyhow thanks again for the pointer to Perelman.
First of all I agree that solidarity among those who are generally rowing in the same direction should be encouraged rather than hairsplitting about this or that, when we are in the minority in terms of access to the loud-hailer of publicity. Also that its important to engage with people’s sense of being attacked and its good to encourage resistance to that without demanding that they subscribe to this or that philosopy first.
However, you get to a point where you think that actually this is damaging because it avoids dealing with the reality and leaves people confused about the causes which potentially undermines their ability to resist.
Anyway my post was about how people choose to explain the crisis, examine the nature of the economy and how they suggest ways to changes things without acknowledging that those 1% are not going to redistribute power simply because you call them complacent, incompetent or greedy. They are complacent, incompetent or greedy because they have all that power.
My problem with Michael O’Sullivan and the other is that because they do not address the issue why things are done the way they are all his explantion of the problems and his recommendations for change are useless. He might as well recommend that we leave offerings to the sugar plum fairy to get him to impose his awesome power to make Ireland sweet and nice again.
He says:
This is wrong. Irish savers don’t lend money to entrepreneurs, banks do. Banks create money by providing loans, not based on the deposits in their banks from savers, but by making an entry on the asset side of their accounts. Here’s a good explanation:
On the puzzle that O’Sullivan describes there is an easy explanation:
So when it comes to an anlysis of what is going on its important to call a spade a spade, otherwise you are doing no one any favours. Banks have power, but how is that power used and how it is to the detriment of the wider society? Do banks have too much influence over governments and if so, why and how does that influence work?
If Michael O’Sullivan went down to OccupyDameStreet to talk to people about what is going on and people asked him why is it that the banks encouraged property and financial explanation over investment in production he would simply answer that, well, it’s a puzzle isn’t it? A fierce conundrum altogther.
So I am not calling for a Marxist critique, or that everyone should attend workshops so people can read and discuss Grundrisse before expressing an opinion, I’m just saying that although we may be the 1% (and I don’t think that’s necessarily the case but that another matter) we have to be honest about what is going on and discuss clearly what is being imposed on the majority of people, the real 99%.
I won’t disagree with anything you’ve said there whatsoever. I was reading some guff the other day from I think it was CASSE (the centre for the advancement of a steady state economy) which was putting forward a critique of something or other, I can’t even remember what now, and I just had to stop reading it. The opening premise was fine, the system is fucked and needs radical change etc., the usual, but the analysis drifted this way and that and avoided the fundamental problem, the elephant in the room to use that lovely cliche, capitalism and the stranglehold it has over the process of change, or power as you’ve described it. Well meaning but ultimately futile guff. But but but, whatever about the futility of arguments calling for a muddling through of capitalist reform, the point is that the process of more and more critique of the status quo does open gaps which can be further opened by the Left, if it gets its act together and develops and advances a credible alternative. A big if of course. It’s a fluid situation, someone who reads the likes of the guff advanced by O’Sullivan may not stop their enquiry at that point and accept his analysis. Many will, and that’s a problem. But it’s inevitable that some proportion will fail to be convinced by any argument, some will align here, some there. Your point that the critiques need to be critiqued is very valid. You’d just sort of hope that it doesn’t end up as something like the Irish Political Review, somewhat cranky and irrelevant.
And speaking of the Grundrisse reading group, you wouldn’t be interested, no??
Conor has written about power and class in Irish economics, and written well. But the only one? What about Kieran Allen’s books on the Celtic Tiger and the on the Crash? Or the CPI pamphlet on the debt? Or Socialist Democracy’s ‘Ireland’s Credit Crunch’? Doesn’t Michael Taft’s blog regularly touch on these?
Anyone remember Raynor Lysaght’s ‘The Irish Rebublic’?
D_D, the comment by donagh doesn’t say “the only one”, it says “Conor, as he is the only one among those writers you mention”
I have spent the guts of the last four years trying to bring attention to writings by the Left in Ireland which deal with economics and history, digging up and making available works which have dropped out of the terms of reference of the Left today - including works by people and organisations which you mention, as well as by others such as Ray Crotty, Chris Eipper, Robert Allen and Tara Jones, The Workers’ Party, John Feehan, Brian O’Neil, the CPI M-L. Indeed, at the launch of my book, as well as at the annual Ray Crotty lecture which I gave last week, I went out of my way to acknowledge the work of those on the Left which have tackled this subject. I have also recorded a number of Left activists as part of an oral history archive I am compiling, including not only members of the CPI, an organisation which you mention above, but also Raynar Lysaght who was writing about the comprador class in Ireland back in the 1960s, and was getting ignored for his troubles by sections of the Irish Left which somehow knew better.
Quite frankly, given the work I have put in over the past four years in highlighting in print, on radio, on TV and on the web the canon of left analysis out there - and indeed, recording at my own expense the recollections of the Irish Left - I am a little taken aback that you think that we’re putting forward myself as “the only one” - especially as the actual comment didn’t say anything of the kind.
Conor, sorry if the comment seemed offensive. That was not intended.
The full quote from Donagh is:
“My comment ‘if only someone would write about how power works in Ireland’ was a nod to Conor, as he is the only one among those writers you mention, and in indeed in comparison with anyone else who has written a history of the Irish economy, who deals with power”.
The comment I commented on was by Donagh, not by yourself. I readily acknowledge the work you have put in and the attention you, and indeed Donagh, have drawn to other writers.
Incidentally, I think that Fintan O’Tool does also talk about power and (sometimes) class, though, unlike Conor, he does not put these two directly and together.
Sorry if I picked you up wrong D_D. Getting the Irish Left to actually READ the Irish Left is a big thing for me.
You’re right D_D. It was an off the cuff remark written in a comment on a blog post. It’s an illustration I think that Conor has done the work on this, not me. The good thing about making these points in blogs is that its a conversation, one where everyone is comfortable challenging the claims and points that people make so that our thinking might actually be able to develop.