Blanchard was the IMF Chief Economist from the onset of the global financial crisis through October 2015. He was appointed to this position under the tenure of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I tend to agree with him that both the content and forms of "left" and "right" are undergoing, and need to undergo significant shifts in content, and that global relations will increasingly dominate economic, labor, and political alignments as advancing integration brings both collisions and embraces of nations and peoples.
However, it is always curious to me, in Lenin's old spirit of attending to the details of different 'class' perspectives on the same incident or idea, why and when the "globalist liberal" views democracy as "chaos". If one considers constantly spending most of a lifetime walking betwixt disasters as also 'chaotic', that the describes life for most of the working classes throughout history, which was mostly autocracy. Democracy, and the revolutions that gave birth to it, are festivals of the oppressed. They look chaotic to ruling classes --- but maybe THOSE alignments also need to shift!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/12/olivier-blanchard-_the-french-yellow-vest-movement-and-the-current-failure-of-representative-democracyhttpspii.html
The French "Yellow Vest" Movement and the (Current) Failure of Representative Democracy
Olivier Blanchard (PIIE)
December 3, 2018 1:00 PM
Photo Credit: REUTERS/Stephane Mahe/File Photo
Images of gilets jaunes in France—so named for the yellow vests they wear—have flooded news broadcasts in recent weeks. To trace the deep roots of their protests, one has to go back to the end of communism and the failure of central planning as an alternative to the market economy.
Up until then, central planning represented for some the hope that there was a more humane alternative to capitalism, one in which there was less inequality and less insecurity. Politics could be organized from left to right, along mostly economic lines, with central planning at one end and the market economy at the other. The communist party stood at one extreme, then the socialist party, then (rather timidly in France) the more market-oriented center right parties at the other end. Political life was fairly well organized, and parties and unions played their role as conduits for their constituency's preferences.
However, with the end of communism, it became clear that there was no alternative, only a muddle between market intervention and free markets. So long as growth was strong, and all boats were indeed lifted, the problem was manageable. Then growth slowed down, and inequality and insecurity became more salient, with no simple solution in sight.
The center-right and center-left parties tried their best to manage, but their efforts were not good enough. Sarkozy tried reforms but failed. Hollande, his successor, had a more realistic agenda but did not achieve much. Unemployment remained high and taxes increased. People increasingly felt that the traditional parties did not improve their lot, nor did they represent them.
Then came Macron, who correctly pointed out that the left/right distinction did not make much sense anymore, and he won by occupying the large middle. In doing so, he tore the traditional center left and right parties to pieces, leaving only the extreme right and the extreme left as alternatives.
In the process, he may have made the political system worse. As the economy has not improved much yet, people, unhappy with the lack of results, do not have the traditional parties to turn to. Some have joined the extreme left or the extreme right. More have become skeptical of any representation, be it parties or unions, and have taken to the streets. Thus the gilets jaunes was born, a spontaneous and unorganized response, a form of direct democracy.
But unorganized direct democracy does not work. In a country of 65 million people, ancient Athens' agora-style democracy cannot work. We have seen this in the last three weeks. There is no coherent voice or message emerging from the movement: The state cannot provide more public services and simultaneously lower taxes. In the streets, the movement cannot avoid being hijacked, to its dismay, by anarchists or vandals. It is going nowhere.
The challenge to the government and the political class is immense. If I am right, the sources of the problem are old and deep. The government must convince people that it is hearing them, while making clear that it cannot deliver the impossible. And the opposition must avoid playing with fire: Unorganized anger can lead to chaos.
-- via my feedly newsfeed
Olivier Blanchard (PIIE)
December 3, 2018 1:00 PM
Photo Credit: REUTERS/Stephane Mahe/File Photo
Images of gilets jaunes in France—so named for the yellow vests they wear—have flooded news broadcasts in recent weeks. To trace the deep roots of their protests, one has to go back to the end of communism and the failure of central planning as an alternative to the market economy.
Up until then, central planning represented for some the hope that there was a more humane alternative to capitalism, one in which there was less inequality and less insecurity. Politics could be organized from left to right, along mostly economic lines, with central planning at one end and the market economy at the other. The communist party stood at one extreme, then the socialist party, then (rather timidly in France) the more market-oriented center right parties at the other end. Political life was fairly well organized, and parties and unions played their role as conduits for their constituency's preferences.
However, with the end of communism, it became clear that there was no alternative, only a muddle between market intervention and free markets. So long as growth was strong, and all boats were indeed lifted, the problem was manageable. Then growth slowed down, and inequality and insecurity became more salient, with no simple solution in sight.
The center-right and center-left parties tried their best to manage, but their efforts were not good enough. Sarkozy tried reforms but failed. Hollande, his successor, had a more realistic agenda but did not achieve much. Unemployment remained high and taxes increased. People increasingly felt that the traditional parties did not improve their lot, nor did they represent them.
Then came Macron, who correctly pointed out that the left/right distinction did not make much sense anymore, and he won by occupying the large middle. In doing so, he tore the traditional center left and right parties to pieces, leaving only the extreme right and the extreme left as alternatives.
In the process, he may have made the political system worse. As the economy has not improved much yet, people, unhappy with the lack of results, do not have the traditional parties to turn to. Some have joined the extreme left or the extreme right. More have become skeptical of any representation, be it parties or unions, and have taken to the streets. Thus the gilets jaunes was born, a spontaneous and unorganized response, a form of direct democracy.
But unorganized direct democracy does not work. In a country of 65 million people, ancient Athens' agora-style democracy cannot work. We have seen this in the last three weeks. There is no coherent voice or message emerging from the movement: The state cannot provide more public services and simultaneously lower taxes. In the streets, the movement cannot avoid being hijacked, to its dismay, by anarchists or vandals. It is going nowhere.
The challenge to the government and the political class is immense. If I am right, the sources of the problem are old and deep. The government must convince people that it is hearing them, while making clear that it cannot deliver the impossible. And the opposition must avoid playing with fire: Unorganized anger can lead to chaos.
-- via my feedly newsfeed
No comments:
Post a Comment