It was October 29, 1929, that ushered in the great stock market collapse that in turn led to the great depression of the 1930s. The depression was probably the lowest point for market ideologues. There were times when it looked as if capitalism wouldn’t survive.
The growth of statism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, and the rise of facism in Germany and elsewhere, challenged liberal democracy with its dependence on private markets.
Democratic socialism (including the election of Tommy Douglas and the Co-oeprative Commonwealth Federation, the first elected socialist government in North America, in 1944) also grew as the failures of markets were laid bare.
Of course, as we now know, market ideology began to assert itself during the second world war and kept growing. The growth of private markets were aided by liberal democratic parties – such as the Liberals in Canada and the Democrats in the United States – who campaign on socialist values but govern with a ruthless devotion to private markets.
The international neo-liberal agenda – called “globalization” – has been imposed on governments and economies around the world through economic and sometimes military force. But is the pendulum swinging away from market ideology and neo-liberalism.
Historian Eric Hobsbawm sees signs of the retreat of market ideology (though not as dramatic as the collapse of 1929). John Ralston Saul, in his 2005 book The Collapse of Globalism, is direct in his analysis.
One thing is certain. Human history is the story of change. Usually, that change is brought by an interplay of powerful forces. Sometimes, change bubbles up from people and human values.
Another thing is certain. Despite its elaborate mythology, market ideology has profoundly failed to meet basic human needs here in Canada, and around the world. Far from being the efficient distributor of resources claimed by its adherents, markets reward the powerful and punish the powerless.
- Michael Shapcott
Robert McClelland said
Far from being the efficient distributor of resources claimed by its adherents, markets reward the powerful and punish the powerless.
And lets not forget the trillions of dollars in taxpayer money the socalled private free market needs to keep it going. The trillion dollars in worldwide defense spending is just one example.
Ash said
There is an excellent article from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that discusses this same issue. It’s actually a 3 parter. The link below is to the 3rd part which talks about China and India as emerging economic forces. The interesting bit, is that while both of these countries are emerging as strong, capitalistic powers, this growth has come at a high cost to their own marginalized populations; big surprise there. China may have output far exceeding that of the United States, but it’s poor are just as poor.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca//index.cfm?act=news&do=article&article_ID=1460&type_ID=
I have been reading a lot of work by Malcolm Muggeridge lately. There is a common theme from his writing in the early 30s; at the time, he foresaw the collapse of the capitalist model. In later work, as the United States rose to power, he second guesses himself. It would seem now that his predictions were actually quite accurate, he just had to wait a little longer.
camvidler said
We have yet to see a true freemarket. It is usually gummed up by government bureaucracy and political coercionl. I’d be the first to denounce the subsidies and special priveleges granted to corporations and industrialists, but this is not the freemarket, this is corporatism. It is essentially statism in disguise.
I also take issue with the assumption that the free market is prone to collapse. The Great Depression was as result of complex political forces that made international investment collapse, not problems inherent in free markets. True the free-market is destabilizing at times and I agree there are certain social justice needs that can’t be met by the market, but to call it “mythology” takes away from Mr. Shapcott’s credibility. Hundreds of years of theory and empirical testing have immensely improved the understanding of human interaction.
I’m also a little disturbed by the almost romantic mention of fascism and soviet communism without also mentioning that these systems are prone to collapse because they ignore the principles of economic theory.
assman said
Why is giving money to a welfare junky mother who snorts crack cocaine efficient. I think the free market is efficient. It separates the shit from the sugar. The rewards go to those who improve society instead of the welfare crack whore mothers who destroy society. The criminals, welfare crack whores, and shit in society deserve the shit they get and more. The should be powerless.