Jeremy Corbyn and The Economist: a fateful allience, a comment by Political Reporter

The Neo-Liberal Consensus is failed, no matter the pronouncements coming from The Economist or The Financial Times! These declarations about the ‘Hard Left’,’Loony Left’ and other such locutions are the rhetorical cover adopted to mask that failure.

Ignoring the rise of both Right and Left in response to the Depression of 2008 is key to the a-historical approach to this  seemingly endless Political Crisis: The why of it, this crisis is   endemic, remains outside the ken of The Economist editorlists. The ‘Wisdom of the Market’ the touchstone of Hayek’s economic epistemology is the purest of theologies: ‘Markets’ are subject to the vicissitudes of human emotion or ‘Animal Spirits’! Not subject to some posited ersatz Rationalism: Markets are about the herd instinct, the most dangerous of human frailties.

An historically based appraisal of the rise of both the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ in response to  that failed Neo-Liberal paradigm might make this situation comprehensible. That 2008 Depression and it’s successor Austerity, presented as necessary ‘strong medicine’ in response to the excesses of that Market. And the present economic doldrums, allied to the economic stratification under the rubric of ‘Inequality’,  make both the rise of the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’ subject to a reasoned analysis. Instead what we get from The Economist, and it’s writers, is a repetition of usual Anti-Left hysterics framed in the most self-serving melodramatic terms as demonstrative of political irrationality. Would that The Economist writers might apply the same standard used to vilify Mr. Corbyn to the economic actors in the Market, who were authors of that 2008 Depression, with the aid and comfort provided by an utterly corrupt political class- but now I’ve strayed into a Utopian reverie not unlike the one that The Economist editorial writers bask.

Political Reporter

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.