Meeting held on Monday 16 January 2017
8 members were present and two gave their apologies.
Being the first meeting for conversation for two months there was a very lively discussion of Trump, Brexit, public disaffection with political establishments and concerns for control over immigration.
We started by considering how the Trump and Brexit phenomena, despite their similarities, were significantly different. Support for Trump appears to be more ideologically framed around opposition to a range of ‘liberal’ (in the US sense, ie progressive) concerns for civil rights, LGBT, antiracism, abortion, etc. Brexit support was from a more mixed bag of concerns. Both, however, were a consequence of feelings of alienation by large sections of the public who felt that the political establishment, of whatever party, did not represent their interests. While some claimed to speak in support of the under privileged, their policies invariably failed to restrict the increases in inequality that were built into the economic system.
We viewed the situation (not only in UK) as being highly unpredictable, which would not necessarily be a bad thing. It was a situation in which inherent contradictions of our (capitalist/neoliberal?) economic system are emerging.
If inequality is to be addressed, there needs to be greater taxation. But this is unlikely to be supported. This is because our society no longer appears to value community. It is as an individual that we are expected to engage with the market-place, not as a community. Institutions such as Trades Unions, which support community action and politics, have been broken down. The very concept of taxation depends upon a strong identity with a community rather than simply individualistic motivations.
How then do progressive forces (such as Labour or Green Parties?), who may want to increase taxation, attract those who feel left behind and alienated? Do such progressive forces speak ‘for’ the underprivileged and alienated, or are the underprivileged able to speak and act for themselves? Does progressive change arise from the alienated public, or are they to be ‘led’ in some way?
In considering the need for new kinds of economics we thought it important to envisage a future rather than return to past securities. Such a future would, we thought, welcome increased leisure afforded by technology, rather than just focus on jobs as being the only value. How would such a massive change be organised?
One of the contradictions emerging from the Brexit situation concerns sovereignty and immigration. Neoliberal economics requires global markets with unrestricted movement of capital and labour. But this inevitably poses limitations upon sovereignty and control of borders. Any ‘coherent’ immigration policy will inevitably have to deal with such a contradiction and is thus unlikely to be simple.