Ill Fares the Land

A good student of economics is 'good' insofar as he begins to establish a cohesive set of notions about the nature of human economic behavior. He refines these notions through continued study and thought, and his ego is bolstered by his philosophy's ability to transcend the squalor of the classroom debate, shining inimitable as the apex of his efforts. When this student then comes across a work so humbling as is Tony Judt's Ill Fares The Land, which so completely encompasses and even surpasses his own notions so as to make him redundant, he cannot help but feel somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand he is made to feel small and insignificant; a realization that his efforts must continue, and that an entire lifetime may not yield anything of unique significance. On the other, he is comforted by the thought that there exist men and women of such intellectual prowess, such keen insight, that the crumbling world around him might yet be saved.In his book, Judt outlines a world with impotent politicians (politicians-lite, he calls them), stifled debate, and a perverted moral narrative. Somewhere amidst the transition from the old world intellectuals to the baby boomers they bore, the focus became less on the unity of a nation and more on the needs and rights of the individual. Born into a "world of improving life chances, generous medical and educational services, optimistic prospects of upward social mobility and-perhaps above all-an indefinable but ubiquitous sense of security," this new generation began to perceive the goals of their forefathers as unwanted restrictions on personal liberty. This isn't to say that the focus on personal liberty did not produce commendable moral progress, as is evident by the move towards gender, racial, and sexual equality; however, the unity and sense of common purpose which bound a nation together began to give way to a society of individuals seeking to live and let live.With the fall of the USSR in the '80s and early '90s came evidence of the failure of top down planning and government run social engineering, further dissuading from the use of big government and pushing the notion of privatization and free market. In addition, social policies of the past, whose original intentions were to prevent the suffering of the populace, became distorted through time to be unnecessarily burdensome on the taxpayer. Of particular note to Judt were the train drivers in France who, through union negotiations after the Second World War, were entitled to "retire in their fifties on a generous and inflation-protected pension." While this benefit was fine for workers who rarely lasted ten years after retirement, push button drivers of the modern train system are hardly comparable and most assuredly not in need of such a ridiculously low age retirement benefit. Through instances like these, government orchestrated social policies were marked as overreaching, oppressive, ineffective, and superfluous.Despite the new-age condemnation of big government and move toward mass privatization, the failure of social policies such as the train drivers' pensions speaks less about the nonnecessity of government and more about the need for a pragmatic and thoughtful public discourse. Government is not an entity unto itself beholden to no one; it is comprised of and obliged to help the very people who condemn it. Judt argues that the ills of society stem from the inability of the public to think critically about and provide dissent against those traditions which are no longer of use, while at the same time recognizing the spirit of those traditions and the benefit of that spirit as a foundation for progress.Fittingly, it is the origin of the conservative school of free-market economics whose 'spirit' provides an eerily foreboding contextual framework for our modern politics of fear. In a section entitled THE REVENGE OF THE AUSTRIANS, Judt discusses how the foundations of modern conservative thought were born. He attributes the conservative philosophy to a group of Austrians: Von Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter, Popper, and Drucker; who mistakenly feared that a socialist agenda would inevitably lead (as it had in Nazi Germany) to an oppressive fascist state. In one particular instance "Hayek--... living in England and teaching at the London School of Economics--was explicitly projecting (on the basis of Austrian precedent) a fascist outcome should Labour, with its loudly proclaimed welfare and social service objectives, win power in Britain." However, Labour did win and Hayek's prediction was shown to be inaccurate, as its victory helped to stabilize postwar Brittan. So, a philosophy whose foundations rest in fear and failed predictions stands to become the cornerstone of modern policy.Judt does little to hide his left-leaning philosophy or preference for Social Democracy, but promoting his liberal ideology is not the purpose of his book. Rather, Ill Fares the Land is meant to give the reader some history behind the problems facing the world today, and serve as a moral imperative to facilitate positive change. If one is to take away anything from this book, he would be best served by understanding the core principles therein: we must look critically at the world around us and, if we should learn anything from that critical look, we are obliged to act upon that knowledge. Unfortunately, while the sentiment of this book is commendable, it begs the question: Is it possible to shift the trajectory of our society before all is lost?One might also question why Judt's last major work of his lifetime set the stage but didn't go beyond establishing a framework for how we might improve our prospects. It is one thing to know that critical thought and purposeful action might lead to a better tomorrow, it is quite another challenge to determine how to create a culture based around those ideals. Men and women of the caliber Judt alludes to when discussing the forefathers of the 'Great Societies' of the past were not born from the same circumstances of this generation. Furthermore, the channels through which their wills were carried out simply do not exist in today's political system. As is evident from the world leaders elected in our current democracies, the will of the people does not promote the type of critical thought and sacrifice necessary to exact such change. If these great women and men are to shape society for the better, they must either find new ways of shaping society (apart from the democratic process) or the will of the people must adapt to again accept such leaders.Regardless of its inability to solve our problems for us, Ill Fares The Land abides by its own philosophy of critical thought and purposeful action. Judt places upon his readers the burden to solve the problems that face us today, and we are left feeling an overwhelming sense of obligation. However, despite the task that lies before us, we move forward with a renewed sense of clarity; and even if we are unable to recast the public conversation and move society in a purposeful and positive direction, we at the very least know what must be achieved so that we may again live in a world with a bright future.

"What kind of idea are you?" Gibreel Farishta, the biggest movie star in India, ponders as he tries to make sense of his nebulous identity after a sudden mid-air explosion leaves him floating in the clouds. Gibreel Farishta's question from Salman Rushdie's controversial work The Satanic Verses comes to my mind after reading the first sentence of Tony Judt's Ill Fares the Land: "Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today." This is a portentous observation, especially after the near depression-level financial downturns in the world, the recent what appears to be racial related riots in London, and the call to slash government social programs even in the most liberal countries. Tony Judt's posthumous contribution is this lingering question: What kind of government are we today? To help address this modern-day riddle, Judt maps where we are today, describes a previous world that has disappeared, and invites us to vigorously discuss what government can still accomplish in order to counter the "Ill [that] fares the land" today.Part of Professor Judt's popularity is his ability to use language to direct us toward an understanding of our relationship between the present and the past. No more is this skill apparent than in his rather somber depiction of contemporary times. Today, according to Judt, the major social ill of market deregulation and under-regulated capitalism is inequality. "Over the last thirty years, we have thrown all of [pursuit for equality] away," leaving us with the consequences of a lack of social mobility, universal health care, less educational opportunities, sharp increases in mental illness, a lack of civic trust, and, as we have seen recently in London and Philadelphia with flash mobs, a spike in youth and racial crimes. Leading the way in all of these inglorious categories are the UK and the United States, those two, besides Ireland, who have been at the forefront of the free market philosophy. Growing up hearing buzz words such as "markets," "deregulation," and "globalization," Judt makes us pause enough to realize one important idea: this model needs serious revision similar to what socialists had to admit when the Berlin Wall tumbled in 1989.Another aspect of Judt's renown is his insistence that we not forget the past. In his book Reappraisals, for example, Judt argues that an unfortunate trend is that history is poked and prodded for largely individual purposes, such as to build a display for a museum or to retell the local stories of ignored cultural groups. These uses, of course, are not wrong and should be encouraged, but such a trenchant focus on the individual, largely begun by liberals in the 1960s, becomes excessive to the point that we forget our country's shared sacrifice and that we support any measures that best advance private interests. In his rendering of the past up to the 1970s, the world was much different for several reasons--i.e. the Great Depression, world wars--but the key difference was the pivotal role the state had in protecting its citizens from harm.Indeed, the government played a vital function in forging trust and cooperation among its people, addressed the ills of inequality through progressive taxation, provided for the well being of people through social programs, and intervened in the private sector when necessary to protect middle class jobs from being gobbled up by-- contrary to modern conventional wisdom--the unpredictable markets. This type of governance was not socialism but social democracy, where the government genuinely believed, along with its citizens, that faith in governance was as necessary an ingredient as capitalism in shoring up the quality of life for all Europeans and Americans. According to Judt, this trust in this balance has radically disappeared, and that, if we are to be honest with ourselves, our politics and ourselves are to blame for it.In the final section of Judt's book, all is not lost, but nothing can be gained unless we willingly dissent from conventional solutions and instead be honest about the role government can play in the world we envision for ourselves and for our children. This is not to suggest that Judt subscribes to a "one size fits all system" for solving our current problems. In his book Postwar, for example, he emphasizes one important truth: Never again should we place faith in a political system that promises happiness through control and uniformity. To him, social democracy thrives on compromise, and that what social democracy means to one country likely may not apply to another. For example, hearing the term "social democracy" makes many Americans uneasy because they assume that it runs counter to the values of the self-made man. What is necessary, according to Judt, is our willingness to foster a new public debate that uses a new and effective narrative that reengages people on the shared principles that we want in our lives now and for future generations. Admittedly, that is much to ask in this hostile political climate, but, if we have learned anything from the fall of Communism, it is that our hubris for our way of life could lead us down the same path as the Soviets.At only 237 pages, the beauty of Judt's book is that it so clearly encapsulates his evolving views over the course of his academic career. I expect that those who object to Judt's analysis would like to characterize him as nothing more than another leftist, socialist, or even a communist. If you have read his books or listened to him, he makes no excuses for those on the left who maintained almost a blind faith in socialism even as it decayed around the world. Socialism is indeed dead. We witnessed that with the fall of the Berlin Wall. But after the financial collapse of 2008, can we ourselves return to the policies of deregulation and unlimited growth, the very things that have helped contribute to the malaise under which we suffer? As Judt emphasizes in his book, we must promote a state that does more than simply bail out the colossal mistakes of the private sector.

I have read this 3 times and only now feel ready to write a review. Each time I read it, I saw more. It is a dense and brilliant essay that gives historical perspective to our current debates of political priorities. We have lost our ability to discuss things and need new words to set the terms of our political discourse.As Judt saw it, the current way that we address our social policy and spending priorities has been warped by "economism", the simplistic cost-benefit analysis that dominates our political debates with reference to efficiency and "effectiveness". Judt argues that this is the wrong way to do it, that we must look to more human values rather than allowing politicians to continue their tax cuts, thereby increasing inequalities to catastrophic levels and in the process, undermining societal stability and consensus. The result, as he clearly warns, could be a breakdown, perhaps in the form of populist demagogues advocating a return to crude nationalism and exclusion. Sound prescient, doesn't it?Since WWII, he says, we have moved from social spending to provide security and expand opportunity to a wider range of the population. This morphed into a kind of paternalistic technocracy, only to be overtaken by other issues ranging from race to neoliberal policies. Moreover, , he posits, with the end of the Cold War, the left lost its ideals and cohesion, further weakening the discourse, leaving them standing for little more than "improved" government rather than some more coherent vision.This book is utterly compelling and brilliantly argued. The prose is intricately woven, so much so that I delighted in pronouncing every word in my head rather than skimming it. It's not a screed, but a reasoned argument that deserves attention. Though published in 2010, it anticipates the disintegration of the supra-national arrangements like the EU and the looser global leadership of the US.Recommended to all who are concerned with what is happening today.

This is an important book: thought provoking, considered and highly readable it will of interest to anyone with an interest in current social and political trends.The basic argument goes as follows, the belief that the market or market based solutions are the only way to run an economy or promote social welfare is a mistake with huge implications for government and citizens. While the market is able to produce any number of private goods (cars, perfumes, swimming pools) it is not the beast designed to create goods of a more public nature such as healthcare, railways and affordable energy. Self-interest and the profit motive have their place in society but they are not the only interests that create what we might call society.Society, civic association or whatever else we might want to call the common interests of individuals that live under a particular government or within particular borders requires more than simple self-interest to prosper. It requires some sort of awareness that there is some degree of common interest, co-dependency and shared concern and endeavour that brings people together and makes them better off for doing so. This is the argument for social democracy that we simply do not hear anymore. Faith in government, in the validity of caring for the less fortunate and providing encouragement to enable citizens to develop their own capabilities are tenets of political discourse that rarely receive much airing.Judt suggests that the narrow focus on short term profit and efficiency has led to privatisations that led to the fleecing of the tax payer and disadvantage of the consumer. Here he argues that whilst British Rail whilst no paragon of customer service or far sighted investment (due to chronic under funding) at least tried to provide low cost and national service provision as opposed to the heavily subsidised, cherry-picking, rent -seeking activities prevalent todays franchised arrangements. In other words the state may not be the perfect answer to societies ill's in every way, but in terms of certain types of provision of goods that will be poorly or other not provided, it remains the best solution. Therefore we should be promote and be proud of social activities that include and enable rather than simply those that focus on waste, consumption and exclusion.Judt suggests that the passing of responsibility to markets by politicians on the Left and Right has eroded political and civic life, so that low voter turn- out in elections is now a common occurrence in Western nations. The idea that we can make a better civic society for all citizens through political action and the individual animus of `doing our duty' needs to be reinvigorated.My only two problems with this book are these- firstly what should a left of centre party be saying to a cynical electorate about the role of the state and that of markets? Secondly, that Margaret Thatcher came in on a ticket of radical reform because voters, rightly or wrongly that Britain was becoming a failed state that was falling further and further behind its continental neighbours over a wide range of indicators. So, if the role of markets has become all too pervasive, but are the big ideas (apart from hiding behind single issue ideas such as environmentalism) and the sort of language that might be used to inspire voter interest? He could also have made more of the idea that markets ( firms) depend on the state for business (construction/defense) and occasionally as in the banks to be underwritten when things go drastically wrong. So if market participants want this sort of largesse they should expect that the State as representative of the taxpayer (that means all citizens) should extract funds and cooperation from markets in order to be able to provide exist in the first place.`Ill Fares the Land' is an interesting, inspiring and very worthwhile read. Recommended.

Subtitled `A Treatise on Our Present Discontents', the name of the late Tony Judt's last book is derived from Oliver Goldsmith's 1770 work, `The Deserted Village'. The book is dedicated to his adolescent sons: "It was thanks to our conversations across the dinner table that I first came fully to appreciate just how much today's youth care about the world that we have bequeathed them - and how inadequately we have furnished them with the means to improve it."Judt's book comprises an introduction, six chapters, and a conclusion. (There is, inexcusably, no index.) Its shortish length means there is little room for longueurs and digressions. There is a direct focus on matters at hand, one side effect of which is that virtually every sentence could be quoted as an aphorism or as worthy of comment. Take, for example, this from the first chapter: "The wealthy, like the poor, have always been with us. But relative to everyone else, they are today wealthier and more conspicuous than at any time in living memory." But Judt's is not an empty hulk riddled with the worms of cliché. There is also much meat on his bone with much reliance on academic research (in particular the effects of inequality recently published as `The Spirit Level' by Wilkinson and Pickett) to support his contentions. Unfortunately, though, may claims go unsourced.The story Judt has to tell can be summarised by looking at his six chapter headings: 1. `The Way We Live Now' refers to our present state from about 1980; 2. `The World We Have Lost' reviews how it was from 1945 to around 1980; 3. `The Unbearable Lightness of Politics' chronicles profound changes in the political landscape in the 1960s and 1970s; 4. `Goodbye to All That?' posits how we can return to a more meaningful political debate; 5. `What Is to Be Done?' questions what we can focus on to begin this process; and 6. `The Shape of Things to Come' suggests aims.Having been born in 1965 and having taken a more than passing interest in politics, there was nevertheless much here that I learned from Judt's deep readings. For example, I discovered how the `old left' became the `new left', how collective concerns became individualistic, and why. I learned more about the mistaken political prophecies of Hayek, but also how he had reasoned them, and how his followers hijacked his economic theories.The demise of idealism since the 1960s is certainly something to which I can testify and with which I can sympathise. Touching on the Aristotelian `mean' and the Enlightenment's concept of progress, Judt writes how "Some sort of mutual restraint will be required if we are to take seriously all our desires: this is a truism for any consensual system. But it speaks volumes to the degradation of public life that it sounds so idealistic today." Judt concludes that, "Of all the competing and partially reconcilable ends that we might seek, the reduction of inequality must come first."However, except in very general terms, I am not sure that what Judt has to say about company railway monopolies and supermarket competition is necessarily sound. Judt declares "We too readily assume that the defining feature of modernity is the individual." But by taking the question of the railways as an example, he shows how powerful can be the collective, for railways "cannot exist without common accord and ... common expenditure: by design they offer a practical benefit to individual and collectivity alike. This is something neither the market nor globalisation can accomplish." Without the politics of community, Judt concludes, we might be left with the politics of fear. Some might say that day has already dawned.But in many respects the battles fought in the past by social democracy have been won, but then the threat of an alternative in the shape of socialism or communism was enough to make elites in the west sit up and listen to their peoples. Now those threats are no longer there, it seems the most sublime ambition these days is to make money.So what indeed is to be done? Judt says, "We need to rediscover how to talk about change. ... We need to re-learn how to criticize those who govern us. But in order to do so with credibility we have to liberate ourselves from the circle of conformity into which we, like they, are trapped." This is indeed pertinent, but what Judt fails to point out explicitly is that the politics and economics of the past thirty years have not been imposed on us without our tacit agreement: the governments of Thatcher, Major, and Blair were elected into office by a sizeable number of votes. In an echo of the `false consciousness' concept beloved of Marxists, the man in the street needs to rediscover independent thoughts and act accordingly. Fat chance! But at least Judt's book, if widely read, would be a start.

This is short - a primer really, rather than some sort of grand tome - but it's a fantastic polemic (and I mean polemic in a good way).Judt deals with the problem the Left faces in the modern World. Capitalism seems to have won and taken over the World. Most of us can't easily think of alternatives to unbridled capitalism, and those who do propose a different approach are treated as cranks by Politicians and the Media. As he identifies early on, a lot of us are unhappy, but we can't really see a way forward.However, Judt devastatingly undermines the argument that we're all better off this way. Ranging from the effects of globalisation on workers in poorer countries to the inefficiency of privatisation of the rail network in the UK, he repeatedly demonstrates how it's the financial and government elites who benefit from unregulated Capitalism and the cult of 'small government'. He's engaged enough with economics to back up the examples with solid theory, and the end result is fantastically convincing.As another reviewer has already said, though, the people who really need to read this (I could name a lot of supposedly liberal politicians here) probably won't. It's a terrible shame.

A remarkable book that concisely records the decline in civilised standards of life in the UK and USA over the last 30 years. One of three books written by Judt in the last year of his life as, paralysed from the neck down, he was dying from Lou Gehrig's Disease. It is, at one and the same time, frightening, shaming, accusatory and hopeful - a condemnation of our increasingly acquisitive and selfish society and a final warning of what we must do to avoid falling further into the abyss. Judy is truly one of the great historians of our generation.