This week's episode of the Anti-Capitalist Meetup is about someone who in his day was not necessarily considered an anti-capitalist in the sense that most people here consider themselves to be. But in his day, John Kenneth Galbraith was not only a harsh critic of the capitialist system, he also envisioned a more democratic and socialistic future as discussed in his 1973 book Economics and the Public Purpose. His ideas were met with polite apathy, and although he still wrote well-received books, advised Presidents and the like until his death in 2006, his influence was never the same as his 1950s-early 1970s heyday. We are much worse off for that waning influence and we suffer for it to this day.
John Kenneth Galbraith was by 1973 one of the most famous economists of his day. He was a Harvard professor, best-selling author, advisor to presidents, an Ambassador to India,and although not necessarily considered in the mainstream of his profession, he served a stint as the President of the American Economic Association. His best remembered books inlcude American Capitalism:The Concept of Countervailing Power (1954), The Affluent Society (1958), and The New Industrial State (1967). But the book that he considered his most important work was the aforementioned 1973's Economics and the Public Purpose.
Why he believed this particular book was his "magnus opus" was that he felt is was his most encompassing work. While American Capitalism and The New Industrial State looked at corporate and political power and The Affluent Society looked at the uneveness of American post-war prosperity, this book, as he described in the foreward, "this one seeks to put it all together, to give the whole system."
That "whole system" is described as containing three major parts: 1) What is called the "Planning System", where the larger corporations are not subject to the strict laws of neoclassical economics and engage in (obviously enough) a degree of planning. In this part of the economy the larger corporations prefer to not engage in the "anarchy of destructive competition" and desire a large degree of certainty. Their needs are taken care of by government in the name of the "public good" (think subsidies, bailouts, etc.). The other part of the economy, 2) the "Market System" are the small businesses that are too small to exert influence on their market or on the government (no bailouts for these guys!). They are subject to the cruelest aspects of the "free market". The final part of the economy is 3) the "Public". This is the infrastructure, the education system, and other portions of the "public sphere", including the arts and culture. As Galbraith pointed out in not only this book, but in their predesessors, the Public's purpose is subverted more or less to the needs of the Planning System, for example, the Interstate Highway System serves as a de facto subsidy for the auto industry, the arts and culture are debased to what can be commodified and sold rather than something to be enjoyed in and of itself. To counteract these preverse outcomes, Galbraith points out the obvious, that the power of the Planning System, (i.e., CORPORATE power) must be curbed.
The solution for this, as proposed in this book was (gasp) a new "SOCIALISM". This "brand" of socialism should be considered in distinction from "Soviet-style" socialism (what a great many believed what the term "socialism" meant in those days). He advocated a "Public State", where the government (not one under the thumb of corporate power, but a more democratic one elected under publicly financed elections) responds to the public needs and provides public goods (arts, infrastructure, etc.) rather than, for the needs of the Planning System.
Of course, since 1973, we have not seen the increase massive increase in public goods for the majority of Americans. There is no universal healthcare, no public financing of elections, no anti-trust enforcement to curb the monopoly/oligopoly corporate power, no "NEW" New Deal of roads, bridges, sewer systems, no massive government investment in the arts and culture. What we have seen is just the opposite. Corporate power has grown seemingly endlessly and seemingly anything done for the "public good" is only done when it has some benefit for the corporate system.
The specifics of Galbraith's vision is not what is important here. What made me think of Galbraith and his book was not the fact that much of it turned out to be true and that much of what was advocated by him should be advocated by anyone to the left of center worth his/her salt TODAY. It was the fact that those things could actually be discussed within the Democratic Party (even using the word "socialism"). What inspired me to write this was the discussion in the meetup a few weeks ago. In a comment I expressed sadness that the "Overton Window" has undeniably moved right to the point that Democrats today are MORE conservative than many Republicans less than 40 years ago and the ideas that are deemed "acceptable" to even be considered definitely have a more right-wing bent.
The Road NOT Taken....imagine if people listened to Galbraith back then. Imagine if we had the infrastructure, arts fully funded, medical care for all, a curbing of corporate power, a free market, NOT in the teabagger sense of a market "free from rules", but a market where no single business is large enough to exercise undue influence or control over the marketplace. etc. It might not be my vision of socialism, but certainly one I could live with and one that could have served as a building block for a "better" socialism in the future.