The Return of the Public. Dan Hind

      

      The Return of the Public

      DAN HIND

      This paperback edition first published by Verso 2012

      First published by Verso 2010

      © Dan Hind 2010

      All rights reserved

      The moral rights of the author have been asserted

      1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

      Verso

      UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1F 0EG

      US: 20 Jay Street, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201

       www.versobooks.com

      Verso is the imprint of New Left Books

      Epub ISBN-13: 978-1-84467-910-2

      British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

      A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

      Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

      A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

      The aristocrats of intelligence find that there are truths which should not be told to the people. As a revolutionary socialist, and a sworn enemy of all aristocracies and all tutelage, I believe to the contrary that the people must be told everything. There is no other way to restore them to their full liberty.

      Mikhail Bakunin

      Contents

       Introduction

       Part 1: The Idea of the Public

       1 The Classical Public

       2 Private Vices and Public Virtues

       3 Public Servants

       4 The American Republic

       5 Neoliberal Publics

       Part 2: The Public in Eclipse

       6 The Outlines of the Crisis

       7 Estranged From the World

       8 Estranged From Each Other

       9 Estranged From Ourselves

       Part 3: The Return of the Public

       10 Public Commissioning

       11 A Public System of Knowledge

       12 Reforming the Private Sector

       Conclusion: A Commonwealth of Descriptions

       Acknowledgements

       Notes

       Index

      Introduction

      In a democracy public opinion is sovereign

      Alexis de Tocqueville

      FOR THE LAST 30 years American and British politicians have allowed powerful economic interests to manage their own affairs. Whether liberal, nominally social democratic or conservative, successive governments assured voters that their surrender to market forces served the public interest. Once freed from an intrusive state, self-interested investors would identify economic opportunities and deliver faster economic growth. Privatized companies would become dynamic and efficient. Finance could be left to regulate itself, while government became more business-like.1 The majority would benefit from government’s refusal to restrain market forces or to take action in the economy: whatever investors wanted was good for growth and so, by definition, was in the common interest.

      In the summer of 2007 the financial markets, which had epitomized the way that private self-interest was supposed to deliver public goods, began to seize up. In the months and years that followed, governments around the world, led by the United States and Britain, committed billions to rescue failing financial institutions and lent billions more at very low levels of interest. The working majority, having been told for a generation that deregulated finance would bring them their hearts’ desires, discovered that they were suddenly liable for huge new debts. Though the profits of the preceding decades went disproportionately to the wealthy, the losses belonged to everyone. The financial sector had justified its vast profits as the fruits of prudent risk-taking in competitive markets. It was now clear that their private gains had accrued from the reckless exploitation of a public guarantee.

      For a while, the bankruptcy of the conventional wisdom could be discussed openly. Speaking in October 2008 Alan Greenspan, the former head of the Federal Reserve, acknowledged that ‘the whole intellectual edifice’ for managing risk in the vast global market for derivatives had collapsed in the summer of the previous year.2 Greenspan admitted that he had found a ‘flaw’ in the ideology that had guided him during his tenure at the Federal Reserve:

      I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact . . . I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.3

      By the time the financial crisis broke, the ideology that guided Greenspan at the Federal Reserve had spread throughout the state administration. In Michael Sandel’s words, ‘for three decades, the governing philosophy of the United States and Britain was defined by the faith that markets are the primary instrument for achieving the public good’.4 When Samuel Brittan wrote that ‘all provision for the consumer on a competitive basis in a non-distorted market is a public service’, he was doing no more than stating the prevailing delirium.5 Those who doubted the power of self-interest to prevent systemic collapse struggled to be heard in an intellectual edifice that, though gimcrack, had been lavishly soundproofed by Greenspan and his friends in finance, academia and the media.

      We have been through a severe recession and are now being told by Larry Summers, one of Barack Obama’s senior economic advisors and a partner of Greenspan in the deregulation of finance, that we can look forward to ‘a statistical recovery and a human recession’. Summers explains that higher levels of unemployment are a structural feature of the US economy and will not fall when the business cycle turns.6 Many of those who have lost their jobs will not find new ones. Meanwhile the financial markets are demanding cuts in state expenditure