The end of liberal democracies?
WhimsicalChristian
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Dr Oliver Hartwich has a theory that democracy only works when the economy is going well. When it isn't, you see the rise of authoritarianism, like between the two world wars.
His article here argues his theory quite persuasively imo.
"Economic performance is one of the strongest predictors of satisfaction with democracy. Populism, declining trust in institutions, and the pervasive sense that the game is rigged, are symptoms. The disease is the end of material well-being that made democracy feel worthwhile."
The decline of productivity, low birth rate, ageing population in western liberal democracies is seeing massive amounts of government debt, which is not sustainable in the long term.
To win government, you're not going to be popular introducing austerity measures. So you're automatically stuffed in a democracy.
Is there a solution? Or do we just keep getting into further debt and pass it on to the next generation?
Is AI increasing productivity a solution? I think it might be what the governments are thinking because it is the new arms race.
Your thoughts?
His article here argues his theory quite persuasively imo.
"Economic performance is one of the strongest predictors of satisfaction with democracy. Populism, declining trust in institutions, and the pervasive sense that the game is rigged, are symptoms. The disease is the end of material well-being that made democracy feel worthwhile."
The decline of productivity, low birth rate, ageing population in western liberal democracies is seeing massive amounts of government debt, which is not sustainable in the long term.
To win government, you're not going to be popular introducing austerity measures. So you're automatically stuffed in a democracy.
Is there a solution? Or do we just keep getting into further debt and pass it on to the next generation?
Is AI increasing productivity a solution? I think it might be what the governments are thinking because it is the new arms race.
Your thoughts?
Comments
AFF
This claims that, if what one has is a liberal democracy, then poor economic performance will lead to a rise in authoritarianism. In itself, that doesn't seem surprising: if the status quo isn't working out for you, then you're more likely to prefer a change.
If, however, what one has is an authoritarian state, then observation suggests that dissatisfaction with one's lot does not cause people to prefer even more authoritarianism.
Sovereign states with their own currency can afford for debt to increase in cash terms over time. Increasing as a proportion of GDP is more of a problem long term, but not necessarily a fatal one.
It ran counter to the apparently intuitive view that governments should economise in a depression.
IIRC, the trouble was that governments which applied it forgot about the need for compensatory reductions in a boom.
In the context of austerity the GFC wasn't caused by an 'orgy of government overspending' but by the financial sector blowing up.
IIRC the trouble was that no economic system could survive the 70s oil crises.
The Viennese School of Hayek is funded perhaps more by wealthy political think-tanks than academic positions. (As I understand it, the Viennese School is more of an anti-economics theory in that it rejects the idea that the economy responds predictably to government action in a way that would justify that action.) While it's not dominant in academia it has an outsized influence on politicians and the media.
Full-blown Keynesianism is I think a minority position, at least according to its advocates whom I find persuasive.
And thanks, Dafyd. For me, this illustrates that it isn't really about the economics, it's about the politics. In particular, the politics of debt, which is a question that still hasn't really been asked, let alone answered.
Another significant aspect is inequality. But I do think it's the end of the line for liberalism, and about time. Roll on post-liberalism (if we're lucky).
That was the proximate cause, but the real issue was the levels of leverage that had been hidden inside the system.
Thank you.
That's a good question.
Is there historical precedent for authoritarian governments reverting to democracies in hard times?
I didn't know the UK introduced austerity measures. But no it does not seem to have worked.
We here in Australia haven't had much in the way of austerity. Yet.
But the article says spending is not restricted to one political party. It's across the board.
How do you not see increasing proportion of GPD on interest payments in the long term as a problem? There is less to spend on other stuff as you have to pay off more debt.
Can you see a solution?
It's not an easy question. I think its just one we should all be aware of.
I doubt they forgot. They just couldn't because of the lack of income due to the other factors mentioned in the article.
So began the spiral of debt.
You sound clued in on economic theory.
Any thoughts on where to from here? Anyone you've read coming up with options?
I agree. The politics of debt is a question that still hasn't really been asked, let alone answered.
How do we get to your vision of post liberalism to reverse inequality?
The source of the problem is income and wealth inequality. The economic growth of the 50s and 60s was built on strong trade unions and a narrowing gap between rich and poor. That put more money in pockets and increased the velocity of money, driving economic growth and raising living standards. Wealth taxes and UBI are probably part of the solution now, and probably media ownership regulation to control the propaganda flow.
You could increase taxes on the wealthy and introduce UBI and censor the press but isn't that heading down the authoritarian path as the article suggests?
Because monetarism was leveraged as an excuse to smash working class power.
I didn't say anything about censorship, though I see how you got there from the phrasing. No, I'm simply saying that having the bulk of the media owned by the super rich unsurprisingly leads to the bulk of the media opposing anything that challenges the power and wealth of the super rich.
Which would at least diversify things a bit.
I wouldn't call taxing the wealthy or UBI authoritarian. As for censoring the press that depends on what you mean by that. Billionaires controlling the media is almost as bad as governments controlling the media.
I don't think having the media owned by 12 different billionaires instead of 4 makes all that much difference.
So why is it the billionaires generally buy up established ones rather than creating new ones? Could it be that the theoretical freedom to do something is rather different from the practicalities of doing so?
I don't think any of those things are bad but I also don't think that a bunch of people volunteering for a local charity means that there's protection in a world where power and wealth is held by a very small number of people.
And yet the belief in this unlikely idea has more weight (if only for me) than that we will not "go Nazi" if more people have more money.
I like the idea that community ties could or would hold back an authoritarian regime more than I like the idea that wealth could or would. Neither, I suspect, is actually true to any significant extent.
More money in itself is not the whole issue, it's that money equates to power, and huge disparities in wealth give huge disparities in power. Fascism thrives on grievance, and grievance is a lot easier to generate when material conditions are bad and people feel like there's no recourse. Decades of TINA have undermined confidence in the democratic process, and the media have very effectively vilified the left in ways they never do to the right.
Sadly there's little to be gained from publishing the Truth and everything to be gained from pushing untruths.
The media laws in most democracies have been dangerously subverted by those who have an interest in persuading the population to vote in their (those with wealth rather than those paying tax) interest
Speaking specifically of European fascism in the 20th century, there were two groups that were persuaded to go fascist. There were respectable and wealthy people who saw the advantage to them of supporting the strongman who would push aside the laws and social norms in a way that promised big gains to them.
And there were the thugs with a grievance who were the "useful idiots" who could be used by the above and then tossed away when they were no longer useful.
The whole grievance thing is, and has always been, a total lie. Jews overwhelmingly did not cause unemployment in 1930s Germany. Immigrants overwhelmingly are not causing the cost of living crisis in 2026 England.
And especially in the UK, libel laws favour the rich and well resourced.
Many of the clutter of ideas in the basket/bucket/bin of postliberalism can stay where they are, but what postliberalism can provide is a robust critique of the individualism inherent in liberalism.
I think that equality is something to be communally worked towards, for the common good. As to how we go forward, I think this involves a non-zero-sum debate about the nature of the common good (which isn't based on nostalgia), and consideration of how to encourage mutual flourishing.
And if we are to move together towards equality in the various aspects of our lives, I think we need to recognise that many of us here are in debt to the common good. We have borrowed heavily from those we share this planet with, and especially from those who will have to live on it after we've gone.
Strengthening/establishing better anti-SLAPP laws in the UK would certainly help.
The world is zero-sum, in that there are a finite number of resources to go around. A non-zero-sum discussion could be interesting in a theoretical sort of way, but wouldn’t be much practical use until someone sorts out how to achieve post-scarcity.