I know and like Branko. But I find this screed surprising and, above all, deeply disappointing. In the past, intellectuals have similarly lauded the destruction of bourgeois hypocrisy wrought by communism and fascism. How does that naivety look today? Trump just heralds chaos. Chaos never breeds more than more chaos or an autocratic reaction. No decent person should, in my view, welcome his ascent to power.
Dear Martin, I will reply with another piece today or tomorrow. But if you read my current piece carefully, it is not a paean to Trump. It simply states that he, a tool of history, is putting an end to global neoliberalism. Why has global neoliberalism collapsed? Because the global part was dismantled when the West decided that China is too successful and began to apply policies (trade blocs, friend-shoring, 'high fence', economic coercion, investment controls) that are in total opposition to its pretended internationalist values. The domestic part began crumbling after 2008. So it is not Trump that ended it but Biden. Trump is just putting a symbolic end to an ideology whose claimed values have almost nothing in common with what it does.
This is an attractive response, especially the (correct) observation that the "domestic part" started crumbling after 2008. But the issue is not that "China is too successful" at the economic game, but that it is only successful at the economic game because it flouts the rules of liberalism which helped to establish it as an economic power.
One wonders whether the US might have swallowed the hollowing out of its manufacturing had Beijing fulfilled the reform/democratization hopes that accompanied its accession to the WTO in 2001.
No, it wouldn’t because the ‘international order’ established after the end of the Cold War was both a creation and creature of US interests, not just international, but domestic as well. It represented a balancing of class forces at home as well as abroad. The rise of China to economic parity and independence of that order threatens the U.S. no matter what the internal domestic arrangements China chooses.
You might wish to elaborate the consequences of chaotic Trump regime for ongoing issues like fighting climate change, tackling AI and continued rise of similar autocrats in the South
Milanovic is simply pointing out the reality that the globalized system constructed over the last decades is collapsing. You seem to imply there is a moral imperative to think it not so, because climate change, AI, and "autocrats."
The thing is, one can see all three as catastrophes and still look at the hard reality. In fact, I would go as far as to stay in order to deal with the collapse of the Western-led global order, climate change, and the rise of AI, and increasing authoritarianism it is required to look at reality as it is, and not think the answer lies in shooting the messenger.
No Biden did not end it. Trump began the tariff regime against China. Biden made it consistent and added on to it. But if "The West" stopped trading with China there would still be international trade. Less but not an end of it. And spreading out capital from China trading more with Africa and India instead would not be such a bad thing...
And applying trade rules to a country that flouts them and human rights that you hold dear to your heart is not an end of globalization, but rather an evolution.
I am afraid that “The others are worse than us” or TINA does not cut it any more. I see very little laudation of DJT, only the fact that he is a symptom of this situation. Branco could have added the destruction of the planet to the book of charges against neoliberalism
If neoliberal elites cared enough for the masses during the last 40 years and did not rig the system (i.e. creating gigantic wealth inequalities), the masses would not seek redemption in Trump.
Believe it or not, those voting for Trump are not voting for him for a better world. They are voting for him to see neoliberalism and its elites go down, in most cases full and well aware that their situation will not improve. So big is the desperation and contempt.
This, exactly. And it also represents the complete failure of traditional centre left parties to understand, let alone meet, the moment. The failure of the international centre left has been breathtaking.
You've spent so long defending this very system (and hoping for some spontaneous reform movement by benevolent elites to save it) that I'm not surprised you deliberately missed the point. Too bad you never gave a shit when your precious liberal democracy genocided Gaza either. There's the gap between reality and values that Branko talks about.
Communism and fascism were unable to destroy bourgeois for different reasons.
Communism was more a kind of Judeo christian messianic sect.
Fascism was just another kind of capitalism, a consequence of liberal expansion.
But now, the global capitalism itself is the source of chaos and its own destruction. For 5 centuries it was expanding and expanding, killing millions in the process. It cannot expand any more, it has to eat its own substance - the western societies. The planet has suffered a lot under liberals.
So, Trump is good, as this is his unintentional historical purpose. The chaos is good.
No, no it’s not ‘good’. Ever heard the proverb ‘when elephants fight the ants are crushed’? The working class never prospers under chaos. Never. Only the rich and cunning can survive those conditions. Grow up.
Argh!!! Anknowingly Serbs in America voted for Trump. Continuing to be on the wrong side since 1990... We were expeled from UN , Talibans are not... Wrong, wrong, wrong
Martin Wolf and others have written eloquently and persuasively about what liberal capitalism needs to do to survive. However, this is happening hardly anywhere. The reason is that the political process is dominated by small and large property owners. For example, in the UK, the Starmer government had to promise no tax and no government debt increases in order to be elected. It’s trying to make political progress by being more competent than the previous, chaotic Conservative government, but is being howled down by the media and is sinking in the polls. In the US the Biden administration policies boosted the stock market and GDP figures but failed to take enough steps to ensure this reached down to ordinary people. Meanwhile, America continues to be complicit in destabilising large areas of Africa and the Middle East. There is more danger of nuclear war now than at any time since 1962.
Trump has horrible social attitudes but is not a warmonger. His was the only presidency since Jimmy Carter not to start a war. Maybe he will achieve a cease fire in Ukraine and have quiet but firm restraining words with Netanyahu.
It took the great depression, fascism and the horrors of World War 2 to make the liberal moneyed elites embrace Keynesianism and welfare capitalism. Perhaps the political centre needs another pummelling to force it to embrace what Martin Wolf and others are advocating.
**Mr. Wolf, I also did not interpret Branko's text as praise for Trump, but rather as a critique of the Democrats' policies, which were unable to counter Trump's populism and the general rise of populism worldwide. To avoid any confusion like with Branko, I am also on the side of the Democrats, even in the situation Branko described in his text regarding Democratic policies. I believed in Kamala Harris's victory. But you can't expect everyone to be as supportive as you because we are not all the same. The Democrats' foreign policy towards Ukraine was appropriate, but towards Gaza, it was not. They should have more concretely demanded that the Israelis fight against terrorists instead of allowing Netanyahu to kill people and escalate conflicts just to avoid going to jail for corruption. They also failed in creating conditions for the rest of the world to experience the benefits of neoliberalism, which backfired on them. Simply put, people there hate the Democrats no matter what they do, and that's just how it is. So, criticizing Branko for pointing out the Democrats' mistakes is not fair because I know for sure that he wouldn't have space to praise Trump on a portal writing here in the Balkan
Capitalism has always been an evolving system. From old industrial capitalism and self regulating markets (up late 19th century until 1920s) to dirigistic state controlled capitalism (1930s to late 60s) to Neoliberalism & financialization (1970s to 2008) to Technofeudalism (2010s to present). Yes, Technofeudalism is the more accurate depiction of current form of capitalism. It entails rise of Tech Bros & plutocrats, dissolution of Democratic norms, rise of Pathocracy & Kakistocracy, rise of fanatics like Elon Musk and more generally the rise of rentierism. The tangible productive powers of capitalism are declining and rent seeking tendencies are ever increasing. This translates automatically into massive inequality of wealth & income and accumulation of economic as well as political power in hands of few.
Trump is partly an endogenous variable of this transformation. I do not ascribe any ideology to Donald Trump. He's highly unstable, erratic and opportunistic chameleon who can take any position which gives him power & money. Trump is a vehicle for oligarchs to implement their mad policies. A typical bourgeois politician, even an intellectually bankrupt one, won't approve the insane policies of fanatic oligarchs. Like mass reduction of government, mass firing of government employees, cutting social safety net, $2 trillion budget cut, mass deregulation including of parasitical funny money Crypto.
It's mocked in America that De-facto President of US is now Elon Musk but Musk has now global outreach. He's meddling in politics of many nations & with his toxic algorithms. Some people who were frustrated with old Neoliberal system & dysfunctional global order do not oppose Tech Bros political interference in the world. But if history tells us anything, a dysfunctional and broken status quo system may be far better than what comes after when system is completely destroyed by fanatics. Weimer Republic was better than 3rd Reich.
Just because it’s a structural analysis doesn’t mean it’s correct. I largely agree with the analysis, except for the assumption that this will be good for the international working class movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask the millions who died the last time the bourgeoisie decided to take matters exclusively into their own hands. Oh,that’s right, you can’t.
This is an excellent article. It is clear that Branko understands the world and has the real knowledge of the processes which are going on in it.
I really hope this is the end of neo liberalism. I hope Trump is going to speed up destruction of the liberal society as we know it. It was fake and dirty anyway, it was bloody and full of lies.
Of course, on the periphery of the capitalistic system it was more bloody and that is why this was mainly not visible in USA or UK.
Trump is a real imperial capitalist. He is not hiding anything. Let his brutal behavior make the true face of capitalism visible to everyone.
I'm afraid you are begging to get more blood and gore, without any benefit (including your hoped "let them see", because seeing slaves are still slaves).
Indeed! We are about to enter the uncharted post-neoliberalism territory. The long-term consequences of entering it are not known to its protagonists, let alone the rest of us as mare observers. We'll needs lots of luck in the future.
One of the reasons for the growth of far-right movements historically has been fear by the middle class that it was being depressed into the working class. This article in the British Financial Times argues that, although measures of overall inequality in the UK and US are not increasing, this disguises the depression of middle-class incomes relative to the poor and to the super-rich. https://www.ft.com/content/b325af8f-1864-448e-9b3e-bd1a18333a08
I agree more with Martin here. From a historical point of view Trump resembles Rasputin who introduced chaos at the highest levels of government in Czarist Russia. Trump is a laissez-faire capitalist savior, a product of the New York City real estate industry. He wants to be free of any liberal regulatory restrain to make money from whatever deals he can manage with the power he has been given.
When faced with the decisions that come with the office of President he is bound to make mistakes with enormous consequences.
As to liberalism, it has obviously failed to produce redistributive results. It has been thoroughly corrupted by Washington lobbyists and electoral campaign money as it reaches across the table to moderate Republicans that no longer exist.
In short capitalism is in crisis. It desperately needs reform on the scale of the social democratic Rooseveltian liberal/progressive alliance. One way or another the economic demands of working people have to be addressed.
As to capitalism in crisis and it's sinking lower: We have to look at capitalism not as a static system but as a system moving from one form to another. Left intellectuals get caught up in the mistake of thinking China is a socialist system, an alternative system to capitalism. To me China is just state capitalism. But it is a very advanced form of state capitalism in which the state plans out investment priorities but doesn't manage production. The actual allocation of capital to production and management of the enterprises is done by the capitalist entrepreneurs.
At the other extreme of capitalism is laissez-faire Trump. For him there is deep hatred of State intervention in the economy to plan anything or direct investment priorities. He doesn't care at all about the public interest. Everything is transactional and individual profit seeking. Unfortunately for him even in the late 19th Century the obsolescence of laissez-faire capitalism was recognized by the capitalists themselves. They formed trusts, monopolies, post 1929 accepted state intervention in the form of fiscal stimulus, regulation etc. In summary there is a contradiction within capitalism as practiced in the West between laissez-faire capitalism and state capitalism that must be resolved or the system will collapse. China is an example of successful state capitalism. Instead of fighting China with tariffs and military conflict, liberals, supporters of capitalism, should learn something from China and oppose laissez-faire chaos. Progressive intellectuals need to look more carefully at capitalism in motion in crisis and postulate what comes next.
I agree with Martin, cheering on the collapse means embracing chaos with the kind of human suffering you can see in the Ukraine, in Gaza and Sudan. We might even find ourselves in an endgame for the human race.
“Let it sink” or “let it burn” is not a strategy to build a better society — political or economic. Delivering a better standard of living and more responsive government to the people takes the hard work of active building of new institutions, not nihilism or passivity.
“Let it sink” also implies a false dichotomy whereby we abandon one system for another completely different one that somehow arises. Yet political-economic systems exist on a spectrum. Few are purely capitalist or socialist, for example, and societies that have sought to discard their systems wholesale (late 18th century France or early Soviet Russia, very rapid privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union, for instance) have typically amplified public pain or descended into illiberalism. The better question is what specific changes do we make to our laws and institutions, what new laws and institutions do we construct, and what can we borrow from systems past?
Well, there are many levels of "capitalism". I would be happy if the current supper efficient and supper technological capitalism would become less efficient and less fast. Capitalism requires continuous expansion, continuous "growth". Maybe humans should really be "poor", maybe that is the only way to save the planet from ecological disaster.
Since the West with its ideology of neo-liberalism has problems to continue to dominate the world, it has only two options: Either to fight, to assert itself militarily, or to change its policies and adapt its ideology. The US Democrats stand for fighting, Trump stands for changing policies. Branko described this well. The ideology of the Western democrats is worn out, it has been recognized as too hypocritical, so an adaptation has become necessary to secure the rule of capital.
Or Trump's second term will repeat the first like Marx stated, first time as tragedy, second time as farce. And Neoliberalism will reassert itself in 2028, kinda like it did in 2020.
It worries me that Trump is not an intellectual and some of his ideas are crap. On the other hand, intellectuals do not do very well in politics. Just look at Woodrow Wilson, who was a big Princeton professor I believe, and an intellectual. The imperatives of power trump (hmmm...) any bright ideas. I rather think Trump STARTed as "farce" and slowly turned into someone worth taking seriously. I do NOT feel that way about Elon who seems to me the absolute dumbest person alive. So, no, I don't believe the Marx quote serves us here. I repeat: Trump STARTed as a Farce. And this may ENDup as tragedy. I am not religious, but if I were I'd say we ought to "pray for him." I don't even care if I need to capitalize the "h." As: Him. Fine. God Bless you, Mr. Trump (even if you are no intellectual).
No the first term was tragedy. He could have one reelection if he had handled Covid 19 better, but the result was millions of Americans dying. His second term will be farcical by supposedly making America greater but likely weaker...
I am shocked that Martin Wolf thinks Branko's article 'To the Finland Station' was a paean for Trump. Not at all. He is absolutely right that , whatever happens next, 20 February marks a turning point in world history, one that future historians will clearly identify. As Branko says, being in the eye of the storm can muddy our view.
Time will tell about the third leg of the stool: "non-imperialist US nationalism." Three things suggest skepticism about the "non-imperialist" part: 1) Trump's behavior during Trump 1.0 (e.g., assassinating Soleimani), 2) his appointments (hawks and war-mongers, on the whole), and 3) the toxic blend of fierce machismo, insecurity, and unhinged rage that is a core component of his persona. US nationalism, after all, has NEVER, EVER been "non-imperialist"--unless you think wars against the indigenous people were not imperialist...We shall find out, all too soon.
Although I haven’t read To the Finland Station, I believe I understand the gist of this post: we are entering a new era, breaking away from the existing ideology and transitioning into a new, yet unnamed one. In other words, we are witnessing a revolution.
But is it really a revolution and the beginning of a new era? Or is it simply the next (final?) stage of the existing one? As Tom Stevenson writes in the London Review of Books (5 December 2024) about the forthcoming U.S. foreign policy under Trump, it will not be isolationist but “might be more aggressive than before.” In other words, the same policy but without the neoconservatives’ thin veneer of moral hypocrisy.How different, then, are Trump’s threats to Panama from Alan Greenspan’s admission that “the Iraq war is largely about oil”?
Regarding U.S. domestic issues, “woke” and everything that falls under its broad umbrella was only grudgingly accepted by the mainstream. Now, it seems poised for a new lease on life, returning to its natural place as counterculture.
Although I am personally far from being an advocate of neoliberalism, I do believe that very soon a large majority of those who supported Trump will find themselves invoking Cicero’s Philippics: “Nihil est aequiore de re publica…” or in the language I believe we both speak :"Poželjet će se drumovi Turaka ali Turaka nigdje biti neće"
This guy (Bruno Milankovic) is a bit of a mystery to me. I noticed him out there before I joined Substack. I find this part worth a re-post: " Neoliberalism was not an ideology of blood and soil but it managed to kill many. It leaves the scene with a scent of falsehood and dishonesty. " Comments like that are helpful because it confirms what I am thinking too, but puts is "out there" on a platter. Sooooo dishonest. One wonders how nearly everyone fell for it for so long. I was always regularly horrified---but one gets numb after awhile. The nineties seem to have been the peak years of neoliberalism. I found newspapers horrifying beginning around then. I would recomment everyone pay closer attention to Branko. Funny to see Martin Wolf right under me. I am a total "Nobody," but I once had a few email correspondences with the Financial Times editor Martin Wolf. He said I write in a sort of "caricature" style, in quick takes. Now, on more thing: what the hell does "To the Finland Station" have to do with i? It is one of my favorite books. (But maybe this does not refer to the book?) Anyhow, I will re-post within the same Comment:
" Neoliberalism was not an ideology of blood and soil but it managed to kill many. It leaves the scene with a scent of falsehood and dishonesty. "
As for Wolf's apparent inability to follow events, this is to be expected. He is totally submerged in one of the major institutions of our present world order. Those persons cannot seem to see it, when there is (as Branko said) such a great sea change. I, on the other hand, an a total "Nobody." That gives me a clearer view.
Definitely agree. The mainstream parties sold out their constituents to top corporate bidders for some 40 years, they bankrupted themselves ideologically, now come the consequences.
Love your analyses on Trump! You are absolutely right, this marks the end of Neoliberalism and this ought to be welcomed given the tremendous flaws in it (inequality, plutocracy and so on).
Change is difficult, and when it brings too much instability it is even dangerous, but it is inevitable. I wish this new wind would take into account the value of our natural world a bit, but other than that, I welcome it!
I personally think our nation state division of this planet isn't going to last. I believe regional politics, economics and social cohesion form a way more realistic boundary than the nation states. Federal hegemonies (like US, EU, China) make sense alongside regional entities, but the middle men (smaller countries) will probably not last another century.
And as always, those who can anticipate on this best will play a larger role in our future.
Dear Branko, could you elaborate on your claim about “historically unprecedented increases in inequality” during neo-liberalism? Based on our conversation, I had the impression that the rise of inequality in English-speaking countries is real but (A) is pretty mild compared to the rise of wealth inequality in industrial Britain, and (B) has stopped or even reversed since 2010. Same could be said about inequality in China, which rose a lot during China's takeoff but is now decreasing. Furthermore, this trend isn’t matched by continental Europe, which hasn’t seen much rise in post-tax inequality. Global inequality has even reduced thanks to diminishing inequality between Asian and Western wages.
you do recognise that you do not accept Branko's arguments, do not give your own arguments, and then ask Branko to argue against himself to prove your point.
I'm not arguing against Branko's claim. I'm just keen to understand what he means as his claim here isn't in obvious agreement with how explained the situation to me a year ago.
On standard measures, income inequality has flattened or reduced in both the UK and the US since the financial crisis. For example, the UK Gini coefficient was 38.6% in 2008 but 34.6% in 2020. Some graphs are below. This is what Branko was talking about when I interviewed him.
"See Piketty's work" is a bit vague. Can you give a more helpful reference? I know Piketty prefers top/bottom fractions over Gini. But as you see in the ref above, this makes the suggested drop in UK inequality either identical (on 10/90 measures), or more pronounced (on 20/80 measures). How does Piketty support the opposite conclusion?
Now just to be clear, I'm in no way an expert on economics. And like Branko has highlighted in his work, there are dynamics beyond income which increase generational inequality in our times. Homogamy is an example. But this is a separate issue.
I know and like Branko. But I find this screed surprising and, above all, deeply disappointing. In the past, intellectuals have similarly lauded the destruction of bourgeois hypocrisy wrought by communism and fascism. How does that naivety look today? Trump just heralds chaos. Chaos never breeds more than more chaos or an autocratic reaction. No decent person should, in my view, welcome his ascent to power.
Dear Martin, I will reply with another piece today or tomorrow. But if you read my current piece carefully, it is not a paean to Trump. It simply states that he, a tool of history, is putting an end to global neoliberalism. Why has global neoliberalism collapsed? Because the global part was dismantled when the West decided that China is too successful and began to apply policies (trade blocs, friend-shoring, 'high fence', economic coercion, investment controls) that are in total opposition to its pretended internationalist values. The domestic part began crumbling after 2008. So it is not Trump that ended it but Biden. Trump is just putting a symbolic end to an ideology whose claimed values have almost nothing in common with what it does.
This is an attractive response, especially the (correct) observation that the "domestic part" started crumbling after 2008. But the issue is not that "China is too successful" at the economic game, but that it is only successful at the economic game because it flouts the rules of liberalism which helped to establish it as an economic power.
One wonders whether the US might have swallowed the hollowing out of its manufacturing had Beijing fulfilled the reform/democratization hopes that accompanied its accession to the WTO in 2001.
Who held those hopes? Not the majority of Chinese people, nor the Chinese leadership.
No, it wouldn’t because the ‘international order’ established after the end of the Cold War was both a creation and creature of US interests, not just international, but domestic as well. It represented a balancing of class forces at home as well as abroad. The rise of China to economic parity and independence of that order threatens the U.S. no matter what the internal domestic arrangements China chooses.
You might wish to elaborate the consequences of chaotic Trump regime for ongoing issues like fighting climate change, tackling AI and continued rise of similar autocrats in the South
Milanovic is simply pointing out the reality that the globalized system constructed over the last decades is collapsing. You seem to imply there is a moral imperative to think it not so, because climate change, AI, and "autocrats."
The thing is, one can see all three as catastrophes and still look at the hard reality. In fact, I would go as far as to stay in order to deal with the collapse of the Western-led global order, climate change, and the rise of AI, and increasing authoritarianism it is required to look at reality as it is, and not think the answer lies in shooting the messenger.
No Biden did not end it. Trump began the tariff regime against China. Biden made it consistent and added on to it. But if "The West" stopped trading with China there would still be international trade. Less but not an end of it. And spreading out capital from China trading more with Africa and India instead would not be such a bad thing...
And applying trade rules to a country that flouts them and human rights that you hold dear to your heart is not an end of globalization, but rather an evolution.
I am afraid that “The others are worse than us” or TINA does not cut it any more. I see very little laudation of DJT, only the fact that he is a symptom of this situation. Branco could have added the destruction of the planet to the book of charges against neoliberalism
If neoliberal elites cared enough for the masses during the last 40 years and did not rig the system (i.e. creating gigantic wealth inequalities), the masses would not seek redemption in Trump.
Believe it or not, those voting for Trump are not voting for him for a better world. They are voting for him to see neoliberalism and its elites go down, in most cases full and well aware that their situation will not improve. So big is the desperation and contempt.
This, exactly. And it also represents the complete failure of traditional centre left parties to understand, let alone meet, the moment. The failure of the international centre left has been breathtaking.
Similar to inner city rioters who destroy local businesses. Lack of hope turns into nihlism.
You've spent so long defending this very system (and hoping for some spontaneous reform movement by benevolent elites to save it) that I'm not surprised you deliberately missed the point. Too bad you never gave a shit when your precious liberal democracy genocided Gaza either. There's the gap between reality and values that Branko talks about.
Communism and fascism were unable to destroy bourgeois for different reasons.
Communism was more a kind of Judeo christian messianic sect.
Fascism was just another kind of capitalism, a consequence of liberal expansion.
But now, the global capitalism itself is the source of chaos and its own destruction. For 5 centuries it was expanding and expanding, killing millions in the process. It cannot expand any more, it has to eat its own substance - the western societies. The planet has suffered a lot under liberals.
So, Trump is good, as this is his unintentional historical purpose. The chaos is good.
No, no it’s not ‘good’. Ever heard the proverb ‘when elephants fight the ants are crushed’? The working class never prospers under chaos. Never. Only the rich and cunning can survive those conditions. Grow up.
Argh!!! Anknowingly Serbs in America voted for Trump. Continuing to be on the wrong side since 1990... We were expeled from UN , Talibans are not... Wrong, wrong, wrong
Those who refused to reform Neoliberalism are responsible for the rise of Trump -- they sowed the wind, so now we all reap the whirlwind ...
Martin Wolf and others have written eloquently and persuasively about what liberal capitalism needs to do to survive. However, this is happening hardly anywhere. The reason is that the political process is dominated by small and large property owners. For example, in the UK, the Starmer government had to promise no tax and no government debt increases in order to be elected. It’s trying to make political progress by being more competent than the previous, chaotic Conservative government, but is being howled down by the media and is sinking in the polls. In the US the Biden administration policies boosted the stock market and GDP figures but failed to take enough steps to ensure this reached down to ordinary people. Meanwhile, America continues to be complicit in destabilising large areas of Africa and the Middle East. There is more danger of nuclear war now than at any time since 1962.
Trump has horrible social attitudes but is not a warmonger. His was the only presidency since Jimmy Carter not to start a war. Maybe he will achieve a cease fire in Ukraine and have quiet but firm restraining words with Netanyahu.
It took the great depression, fascism and the horrors of World War 2 to make the liberal moneyed elites embrace Keynesianism and welfare capitalism. Perhaps the political centre needs another pummelling to force it to embrace what Martin Wolf and others are advocating.
**Mr. Wolf, I also did not interpret Branko's text as praise for Trump, but rather as a critique of the Democrats' policies, which were unable to counter Trump's populism and the general rise of populism worldwide. To avoid any confusion like with Branko, I am also on the side of the Democrats, even in the situation Branko described in his text regarding Democratic policies. I believed in Kamala Harris's victory. But you can't expect everyone to be as supportive as you because we are not all the same. The Democrats' foreign policy towards Ukraine was appropriate, but towards Gaza, it was not. They should have more concretely demanded that the Israelis fight against terrorists instead of allowing Netanyahu to kill people and escalate conflicts just to avoid going to jail for corruption. They also failed in creating conditions for the rest of the world to experience the benefits of neoliberalism, which backfired on them. Simply put, people there hate the Democrats no matter what they do, and that's just how it is. So, criticizing Branko for pointing out the Democrats' mistakes is not fair because I know for sure that he wouldn't have space to praise Trump on a portal writing here in the Balkan
Spoken like a true neoliberal, who ruined the world and then blamed the voters for noticing.
I thought Trump was the autocrat.
Is that aimed at Branko? Would you mind expanding on the rather cryptic comment, Tim?
Capitalism has always been an evolving system. From old industrial capitalism and self regulating markets (up late 19th century until 1920s) to dirigistic state controlled capitalism (1930s to late 60s) to Neoliberalism & financialization (1970s to 2008) to Technofeudalism (2010s to present). Yes, Technofeudalism is the more accurate depiction of current form of capitalism. It entails rise of Tech Bros & plutocrats, dissolution of Democratic norms, rise of Pathocracy & Kakistocracy, rise of fanatics like Elon Musk and more generally the rise of rentierism. The tangible productive powers of capitalism are declining and rent seeking tendencies are ever increasing. This translates automatically into massive inequality of wealth & income and accumulation of economic as well as political power in hands of few.
Trump is partly an endogenous variable of this transformation. I do not ascribe any ideology to Donald Trump. He's highly unstable, erratic and opportunistic chameleon who can take any position which gives him power & money. Trump is a vehicle for oligarchs to implement their mad policies. A typical bourgeois politician, even an intellectually bankrupt one, won't approve the insane policies of fanatic oligarchs. Like mass reduction of government, mass firing of government employees, cutting social safety net, $2 trillion budget cut, mass deregulation including of parasitical funny money Crypto.
It's mocked in America that De-facto President of US is now Elon Musk but Musk has now global outreach. He's meddling in politics of many nations & with his toxic algorithms. Some people who were frustrated with old Neoliberal system & dysfunctional global order do not oppose Tech Bros political interference in the world. But if history tells us anything, a dysfunctional and broken status quo system may be far better than what comes after when system is completely destroyed by fanatics. Weimer Republic was better than 3rd Reich.
My own analysis of Trump era is here.
https://3rdworldecon.substack.com/p/what-drives-trump
I prefer Branko's analysis. It is systemic, not personal.
Just because it’s a structural analysis doesn’t mean it’s correct. I largely agree with the analysis, except for the assumption that this will be good for the international working class movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask the millions who died the last time the bourgeoisie decided to take matters exclusively into their own hands. Oh,that’s right, you can’t.
You sound like a commie! Stop drinking the radical left cool-aid.
Do you have an actual argument, or is ad hominem ignorant abuse all you have?
Exactly.
As on personal analysis, Trump is very intelligent.
Trump is stable, not erratic, not opportunistic,
what you Sanjeev see as being unstable, erratic, opportunistic
is the actually the first, and most important part of the art of making a deal.
When bargaining about the price of an object on the market
the most important part is not closing the deal
but giving the first offer
when both sides give the first offer
the area of negotiation has been determined
price cannot be higher than the highest demanded
or lower than first offered
making deal from them on is definitely not easy but
reasonably intelligent spectator can tell you what will the final price approximately be
the most difficult part of making a deal is before the first offer is made
when one threatens to go away
claims the object has no value
etc.
Trump is a businessman and approaches political negotiations in the same way
all cards are on the table
Look at Gaza
if Trump was to threaten publicly Israel
it would be a message that Hamas would interpret as lets keep refusing the deal until Trump is elected
if Trump publicly threatens Hamas
and simultaneously is not embracing Netanyahu, keeping him at some distance
he looks tough
he cannot be accused of being anti-Israel
both Hamas and Israel understand they better sign something because future might be worse
You have drunk the kool aid. Put it down. It’s making you silly.
This interesting comment reminds of something. Oh, yeah: I just posted one my own. Good for me!
https://silverman.substack.com/p/trump-fascism-real?r=mxahf
This is an excellent article. It is clear that Branko understands the world and has the real knowledge of the processes which are going on in it.
I really hope this is the end of neo liberalism. I hope Trump is going to speed up destruction of the liberal society as we know it. It was fake and dirty anyway, it was bloody and full of lies.
Of course, on the periphery of the capitalistic system it was more bloody and that is why this was mainly not visible in USA or UK.
Trump is a real imperial capitalist. He is not hiding anything. Let his brutal behavior make the true face of capitalism visible to everyone.
I'm afraid you are begging to get more blood and gore, without any benefit (including your hoped "let them see", because seeing slaves are still slaves).
Indeed! We are about to enter the uncharted post-neoliberalism territory. The long-term consequences of entering it are not known to its protagonists, let alone the rest of us as mare observers. We'll needs lots of luck in the future.
One of the reasons for the growth of far-right movements historically has been fear by the middle class that it was being depressed into the working class. This article in the British Financial Times argues that, although measures of overall inequality in the UK and US are not increasing, this disguises the depression of middle-class incomes relative to the poor and to the super-rich. https://www.ft.com/content/b325af8f-1864-448e-9b3e-bd1a18333a08
An interesting piece (including the letters that demurred). Thank you.
I agree more with Martin here. From a historical point of view Trump resembles Rasputin who introduced chaos at the highest levels of government in Czarist Russia. Trump is a laissez-faire capitalist savior, a product of the New York City real estate industry. He wants to be free of any liberal regulatory restrain to make money from whatever deals he can manage with the power he has been given.
When faced with the decisions that come with the office of President he is bound to make mistakes with enormous consequences.
As to liberalism, it has obviously failed to produce redistributive results. It has been thoroughly corrupted by Washington lobbyists and electoral campaign money as it reaches across the table to moderate Republicans that no longer exist.
In short capitalism is in crisis. It desperately needs reform on the scale of the social democratic Rooseveltian liberal/progressive alliance. One way or another the economic demands of working people have to be addressed.
>In short capitalism is in crisis.
Would it not be cheaper to let the capitalism sink even deeper.
Maybe something new could arise them.
Maybe capitalism is dying.
Antonio Gramsci said:
“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”
Maybe, Trump is just a catalyst. He is going to speed up the inevitable.
As to capitalism in crisis and it's sinking lower: We have to look at capitalism not as a static system but as a system moving from one form to another. Left intellectuals get caught up in the mistake of thinking China is a socialist system, an alternative system to capitalism. To me China is just state capitalism. But it is a very advanced form of state capitalism in which the state plans out investment priorities but doesn't manage production. The actual allocation of capital to production and management of the enterprises is done by the capitalist entrepreneurs.
At the other extreme of capitalism is laissez-faire Trump. For him there is deep hatred of State intervention in the economy to plan anything or direct investment priorities. He doesn't care at all about the public interest. Everything is transactional and individual profit seeking. Unfortunately for him even in the late 19th Century the obsolescence of laissez-faire capitalism was recognized by the capitalists themselves. They formed trusts, monopolies, post 1929 accepted state intervention in the form of fiscal stimulus, regulation etc. In summary there is a contradiction within capitalism as practiced in the West between laissez-faire capitalism and state capitalism that must be resolved or the system will collapse. China is an example of successful state capitalism. Instead of fighting China with tariffs and military conflict, liberals, supporters of capitalism, should learn something from China and oppose laissez-faire chaos. Progressive intellectuals need to look more carefully at capitalism in motion in crisis and postulate what comes next.
I agree with Martin, cheering on the collapse means embracing chaos with the kind of human suffering you can see in the Ukraine, in Gaza and Sudan. We might even find ourselves in an endgame for the human race.
Trump, Putin, Netanyahu are monsters
“Let it sink” or “let it burn” is not a strategy to build a better society — political or economic. Delivering a better standard of living and more responsive government to the people takes the hard work of active building of new institutions, not nihilism or passivity.
“Let it sink” also implies a false dichotomy whereby we abandon one system for another completely different one that somehow arises. Yet political-economic systems exist on a spectrum. Few are purely capitalist or socialist, for example, and societies that have sought to discard their systems wholesale (late 18th century France or early Soviet Russia, very rapid privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union, for instance) have typically amplified public pain or descended into illiberalism. The better question is what specific changes do we make to our laws and institutions, what new laws and institutions do we construct, and what can we borrow from systems past?
Well, there are many levels of "capitalism". I would be happy if the current supper efficient and supper technological capitalism would become less efficient and less fast. Capitalism requires continuous expansion, continuous "growth". Maybe humans should really be "poor", maybe that is the only way to save the planet from ecological disaster.
Since the West with its ideology of neo-liberalism has problems to continue to dominate the world, it has only two options: Either to fight, to assert itself militarily, or to change its policies and adapt its ideology. The US Democrats stand for fighting, Trump stands for changing policies. Branko described this well. The ideology of the Western democrats is worn out, it has been recognized as too hypocritical, so an adaptation has become necessary to secure the rule of capital.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Or Trump's second term will repeat the first like Marx stated, first time as tragedy, second time as farce. And Neoliberalism will reassert itself in 2028, kinda like it did in 2020.
It worries me that Trump is not an intellectual and some of his ideas are crap. On the other hand, intellectuals do not do very well in politics. Just look at Woodrow Wilson, who was a big Princeton professor I believe, and an intellectual. The imperatives of power trump (hmmm...) any bright ideas. I rather think Trump STARTed as "farce" and slowly turned into someone worth taking seriously. I do NOT feel that way about Elon who seems to me the absolute dumbest person alive. So, no, I don't believe the Marx quote serves us here. I repeat: Trump STARTed as a Farce. And this may ENDup as tragedy. I am not religious, but if I were I'd say we ought to "pray for him." I don't even care if I need to capitalize the "h." As: Him. Fine. God Bless you, Mr. Trump (even if you are no intellectual).
No the first term was tragedy. He could have one reelection if he had handled Covid 19 better, but the result was millions of Americans dying. His second term will be farcical by supposedly making America greater but likely weaker...
I am shocked that Martin Wolf thinks Branko's article 'To the Finland Station' was a paean for Trump. Not at all. He is absolutely right that , whatever happens next, 20 February marks a turning point in world history, one that future historians will clearly identify. As Branko says, being in the eye of the storm can muddy our view.
Time will tell about the third leg of the stool: "non-imperialist US nationalism." Three things suggest skepticism about the "non-imperialist" part: 1) Trump's behavior during Trump 1.0 (e.g., assassinating Soleimani), 2) his appointments (hawks and war-mongers, on the whole), and 3) the toxic blend of fierce machismo, insecurity, and unhinged rage that is a core component of his persona. US nationalism, after all, has NEVER, EVER been "non-imperialist"--unless you think wars against the indigenous people were not imperialist...We shall find out, all too soon.
Indeed, given the recent claims Trump made with respect to Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada.
Although I haven’t read To the Finland Station, I believe I understand the gist of this post: we are entering a new era, breaking away from the existing ideology and transitioning into a new, yet unnamed one. In other words, we are witnessing a revolution.
But is it really a revolution and the beginning of a new era? Or is it simply the next (final?) stage of the existing one? As Tom Stevenson writes in the London Review of Books (5 December 2024) about the forthcoming U.S. foreign policy under Trump, it will not be isolationist but “might be more aggressive than before.” In other words, the same policy but without the neoconservatives’ thin veneer of moral hypocrisy.How different, then, are Trump’s threats to Panama from Alan Greenspan’s admission that “the Iraq war is largely about oil”?
Regarding U.S. domestic issues, “woke” and everything that falls under its broad umbrella was only grudgingly accepted by the mainstream. Now, it seems poised for a new lease on life, returning to its natural place as counterculture.
Although I am personally far from being an advocate of neoliberalism, I do believe that very soon a large majority of those who supported Trump will find themselves invoking Cicero’s Philippics: “Nihil est aequiore de re publica…” or in the language I believe we both speak :"Poželjet će se drumovi Turaka ali Turaka nigdje biti neće"
This guy (Bruno Milankovic) is a bit of a mystery to me. I noticed him out there before I joined Substack. I find this part worth a re-post: " Neoliberalism was not an ideology of blood and soil but it managed to kill many. It leaves the scene with a scent of falsehood and dishonesty. " Comments like that are helpful because it confirms what I am thinking too, but puts is "out there" on a platter. Sooooo dishonest. One wonders how nearly everyone fell for it for so long. I was always regularly horrified---but one gets numb after awhile. The nineties seem to have been the peak years of neoliberalism. I found newspapers horrifying beginning around then. I would recomment everyone pay closer attention to Branko. Funny to see Martin Wolf right under me. I am a total "Nobody," but I once had a few email correspondences with the Financial Times editor Martin Wolf. He said I write in a sort of "caricature" style, in quick takes. Now, on more thing: what the hell does "To the Finland Station" have to do with i? It is one of my favorite books. (But maybe this does not refer to the book?) Anyhow, I will re-post within the same Comment:
" Neoliberalism was not an ideology of blood and soil but it managed to kill many. It leaves the scene with a scent of falsehood and dishonesty. "
As for Wolf's apparent inability to follow events, this is to be expected. He is totally submerged in one of the major institutions of our present world order. Those persons cannot seem to see it, when there is (as Branko said) such a great sea change. I, on the other hand, an a total "Nobody." That gives me a clearer view.
Definitely agree. The mainstream parties sold out their constituents to top corporate bidders for some 40 years, they bankrupted themselves ideologically, now come the consequences.
Good to hear that the death of history was largely exaggerated.
Love your analyses on Trump! You are absolutely right, this marks the end of Neoliberalism and this ought to be welcomed given the tremendous flaws in it (inequality, plutocracy and so on).
Change is difficult, and when it brings too much instability it is even dangerous, but it is inevitable. I wish this new wind would take into account the value of our natural world a bit, but other than that, I welcome it!
I personally think our nation state division of this planet isn't going to last. I believe regional politics, economics and social cohesion form a way more realistic boundary than the nation states. Federal hegemonies (like US, EU, China) make sense alongside regional entities, but the middle men (smaller countries) will probably not last another century.
And as always, those who can anticipate on this best will play a larger role in our future.
Dear Branko, could you elaborate on your claim about “historically unprecedented increases in inequality” during neo-liberalism? Based on our conversation, I had the impression that the rise of inequality in English-speaking countries is real but (A) is pretty mild compared to the rise of wealth inequality in industrial Britain, and (B) has stopped or even reversed since 2010. Same could be said about inequality in China, which rose a lot during China's takeoff but is now decreasing. Furthermore, this trend isn’t matched by continental Europe, which hasn’t seen much rise in post-tax inequality. Global inequality has even reduced thanks to diminishing inequality between Asian and Western wages.
https://onhumans.substack.com/p/the-evolution-of-inequality-under
Ilari,
you do recognise that you do not accept Branko's arguments, do not give your own arguments, and then ask Branko to argue against himself to prove your point.
Circular?
I'm not arguing against Branko's claim. I'm just keen to understand what he means as his claim here isn't in obvious agreement with how explained the situation to me a year ago.
"(B) has stopped or even reversed since 2010"
Um, no. See Piketty's work for the details.
On standard measures, income inequality has flattened or reduced in both the UK and the US since the financial crisis. For example, the UK Gini coefficient was 38.6% in 2008 but 34.6% in 2020. Some graphs are below. This is what Branko was talking about when I interviewed him.
US: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA
UK: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householdincomeinequalityfinancial/financialyearending2020provisional
"See Piketty's work" is a bit vague. Can you give a more helpful reference? I know Piketty prefers top/bottom fractions over Gini. But as you see in the ref above, this makes the suggested drop in UK inequality either identical (on 10/90 measures), or more pronounced (on 20/80 measures). How does Piketty support the opposite conclusion?
Now just to be clear, I'm in no way an expert on economics. And like Branko has highlighted in his work, there are dynamics beyond income which increase generational inequality in our times. Homogamy is an example. But this is a separate issue.
Branko, could you give your thoughts on this?
(edit: added some relevant dates)