They called it libertarian communism so would be pretty appropriate for part two I reckon.

Cheers,

Ally

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but Part Two is long overdue.

Agree with your reply that Keynesianism is not the only solution,but as you have rightly stated,manufacturing and heavy industry has been so thoroughly truncated and streamlined in the the name of neo-liberalism over the last three decades,that any hope of a reguritation of another ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’ seems futile putting it mildly;since the monetarist-inspired recession began to bite,there has been scant evidence of a Keynesian-style stimulus for the above said manfacturing sector,or what is left of it.While the banking and finance sectors have been propped up by the US,UK and most of the other adherent countries in the G-20.
I’ve always come to the conclusion that a mixed economy/Keynesian thesis would suit the UK better than a too-rigidly dogmatic consensus.Neo-liberalism would be the ideal in countries like Switzerland or Luxembourg as these nations are dominated by the financial sector.But they are also much smaller nations in size and (especially) population than Britain,and far less class-based.The south of England (particularly the South East and parts of London) has always been predominately middle class and finance orientated for their way of life,whereas Wales,Scotland and the North of England were far more reliant on industry and manufacturing to earn an honest wage;the English Midlands seem an amalgamation of both sectors.
The post war consensus (1945-1979) and the application of a Keynesian mixed economy was both a reaction and solution to the notorious Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the subsequent World depression throughout the 1930’s,one of which byproducts was the emergence of Nazi Germany,looked on there at the time as an antidote for the extreme hardship that Germany was going through like the rest of Europe,the US,and indeed most of the World was afflicted.This of course led to the Second World War,the bloodiest and most destructive conflict in World history.
The so called pre-war neo-classical economic model had failed very badly,so it was only correct that some new style of economic policy now had to be applied in the post-war era.It was indeed a ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’,but I agree with you that much of this was due to the impoverished working classes,who had been just so for centuries,finally managing to influence the main political parties and policymakers,into a more respectful if not humanitarian conjuncture towards them,even from the Tory Party for a period,with Harold MacMillan the most respectful of these so-called ‘One Nation Tories’.Yet it was always destined to be a tenuous honeymoon,and it was stretched to snapping point by the 1970’s.Then US president Richard Nixon was seemingly unconcerned at the break up of the Bretton Woods agreement,and the 1973 Oil Shock,caused by US support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war,much to the chagrin of the Arab OPEC Oil producing nations,meant that the post-war consensus ,which had served the Working Classes so well for three decades,was in it’s last stages,with Keynesianism not producing adequate enough answers to such problems.Nearly two years before Margaret Thatcher won power,James Callaghan as good as admitted this at the Labour Party Conference in his leader’s speech.Industrial unrest of course didn’t help either,but these and the above events played into the hands of the monetarists and neo-liberals.
The ugliest byproduct of monetarism was the creation of mass unemployment,a ‘price worth paying’ to control inflation.While industries were killed off,they were replaced by a mass expansion of the financial and service sectors.Many did well out of this new economic system,but vast numbers didn’t,particularly those at too far a distance from London and the South-East to reap the benefits from this ‘yuppified’ system,and those areas and communities that had relied on various individual industries for their way of life.Thoughtless monetarists have always said that these industries were declining and losing money.Perhaps.But surely industry,in it’s various forms,needs to evolve and not die (Previous governments were usually sympathetic to practical,technological changes in industry to keep people in work).Is it better to keep people in work and contributing to a society’s prosperity,or keep them on benefits and take away their self-respect? The governments since ‘79,especially Thatcher and Tony Blair,have let and allowed capital to dominate to such an overwhelming degree,that innumerable millions find themselves relegated to eternal casual/part-time employment (mainly in the service sector) or total worklessness,sedated by bloated benefits into a form of passive acceptance that nothing can be changed ever again,and that if they do find work,the amount of welfare payments they already accumulate is far superior in monetary terms than if they did some honest graft.
It is in the neo-liberal interest that the status quo for the last three decades remains untampered with.I have with many garnered a quiet satisfaction that it has so spectacularly unraveled over the last 18 months,and that there has been an application of Keynesian medicine to help with the cure.But I actually think neo-liberalism,which has been rightly compared to the pre-war classical economic system by various journalists and commentators (and look what happened there!),should be allowed to quietly pass away as Keynesianism itself was by the end of the 70’s.But like yourself,despite all the knowledge and expertise we have and have always had in industrial innovation and production (after all, the Industrial Revolution started here),a second revolution seems a decidedly distant thought.The spectre of globalisation,successful manufacturing expansion in third world nations like China and India,and the far lower wages there (by European standards),and indulgent,obdurate monetarists further negates any hopes of a return to the mixed economic system.Potential power and strength by the working classes simply isn’t there anymore;it has mostly been replaced by an underclass anaesthetised and dulled by over-generous benefits with no incentive or inclination to remonstrate or displace themselves from the juncture to which they are ensnared,the incredulous,inarticulate examples of which are seen on our TV screens almost every day now,encouraged by exploitative,opportunist TV executives and producers.
When the dust from this recession has settled,we all may,just may,have possibilities to get our breath back and advocate the more balanced economy we used to have and therefore a more balanced,fairer and happier society.But it will be a hard slog,and sadly perhaps a fruitless one.But we can only try.It’s worth it.

Thanks for your kind words and your interest. Membership details and an email address for enquiries are on the front page of this website.

Thanks for your contribution. Like you say, there has been, by dint of necessity, a ‘Keynesian’/statist revival within finance over the past year. However, to hope that this will lead to a restoration of something like the conditions that prevailed during the ‘Golden Age’ of capitalism is forlorn. What characterised that era of Keynesianism was a strong, organised working class, which influenced the balance of political power. Such strength does not exist now. As we said a year ago: “The current crisis offers capital the chance to reorganise, regroup and come up with a new regulatory framework, but this time without working class interference, something Keynes (who was perfectly honest about his loathing of the working class) would regard as an ideal. Cameron’s side has nothing to fear from nationalisation without economic democracy” (http://www.iwca.info/?p=10130). There is no need now for capital to reach a compromise with labour, weak as labour is. The ‘elitist few’ didn’t give us that social compact out of the goodness of their hearts last time, they did it because our strength forced it (and should have forced a lot more). This time round they have no such concerns. For all these reasons ‘Keynesianism’ alone isn’t enough, and isn’t really the issue: it’s a question of political power and strength, and how that strength can be translated into pressuring the economy into being more emocratic, and ultimately wholly democratic. It’ll need a whole lot more than just us to make it happen.