The US and the UK after neoliberalism

This year marks the largest global election year in history. Sixty-four countries plus the European Union, together representing about 49 per cent of the world’s population, have or will vote. Every level of governance – national, local, federal and cross-border – is up for grabs.

Much is at stake, as the outcomes of these elections will shape crucial issues like climate action, the energy crisis, and the global rise of racism, xenophobia and anti-immigration sentiments.

In the UK and the US, two countries at major political crossroads, this year’s elections offer a rare opportunity to reflect on decades of societal shifts and to assess future directions. As political discussions intensify, two recent books provide insights into the consequences of neoliberal policies in both societies: Change Everything by Natalie Bennett and It’s Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism by Bernie Sanders.

Two peas in a pod

Despite differences in their political systems and histories, the UK and the US have followed strikingly similar neoliberal paths.

In Change Everything, Green Peer and former leader of the Green Party Natalie Bennett critiques the false promises of neoliberalism. She argues that for decades, political leaders – following the ideologies of Thatcher and Reagan – celebrated greed and promoted growth as a universal cure-all for societal problems. This approach, often called ‘trickle-down economics’, assured people that if businesses thrived and the wealthy grew richer, prosperity would eventually reach everyone. But Bennett argues that this promise has failed. Today, wealth is concentrated among a few, while society’s broader wellbeing is neglected.

US Senator Bernie Sanders offers a similar critique in It’s Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism, but with a stronger focus on class relations. For Sanders, the issue is not only inequality but also the control that a small elite of billionaires and corporations exerts over US society. As he puts it, ‘Three billionaires in the U.S. – Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett – own more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans combined.’ This elite not only controls wealth but shapes politics, influences the media, and dictates policies that disadvantage working people.

Sanders explains how this group benefits from tax policies favouring the wealthy, corporate-friendly media coverage, and the decisions of politicians reliant on their donations. As a result, he contends, the ‘American Dream’ is out of reach for millions who struggle with basic needs like healthcare, housing and education.

While both authors explain the consequences of these systems that run on inequality, their focus diverges. Sanders concentrates more heavily on how capitalism permeates everyday life through class dynamics, particularly in sectors like healthcare, where profit motives inflate costs and leave many Americans uninsured or bankrupt. He describes this as a moral crisis, where essential human needs are commodified for the benefit of a few. In the wealthiest nation on earth, as Sanders points out, ‘500,000 people go bankrupt every year due to medical debt.’ He also highlights how economic despair and disillusionment in rural and underserved communities drive people to leaders who promise radical change.

Bennett, on the other hand, breaks down how neoliberalism fosters individualism, erodes social cohesion, and promotes environmental destruction on a massive scale. She argues that neoliberalism treats people as consumers rather than citizens, prioritizing industrial farming, deforestation, and exploitation of resources over planetary health. For Bennett, neoliberalism’s impact reaches beyond class relations, exploiting both the Earth and its people, leaving them powerless, stripped of political agency and reliant on market-driven solutions.

Scarcity in an age of plenty

Both authors argue that neoliberal values – exalting market solutions and individualism – have seeped into public life, turning essential services over to profit-driven private entities. People were sold the idea that corporations would provide better, more efficient services in sectors like transportation, healthcare and education.

While the US and the UK have very different healthcare systems, both have seen the influence of privatization take hold. The US operates a fully privatized healthcare system, where profit reigns, while the UK has long prided itself on the NHS, a publicly funded system that guarantees healthcare for all. However, even the NHS has not been immune to neoliberal policies, and during the 14 years of Tory rule, it faced growing pressure to privatize.

Bennett shows how privatization narratives have infiltrated the government’s NHS policies, straining its public resources and reducing service quality. She explains, ‘Privatization doesn’t save money; it just takes it from patient care and puts it into shareholders’ pockets.’

Sanders, meanwhile, illustrates the consequences of a fully privatized healthcare system, and describes how US healthcare has become a corporate playground. ‘Between March 2020 and October 2021,’ he writes, ‘the wealth of American billionaires increased by $2.1 trillion,’ even as millions of Americans struggled with healthcare costs during the pandemic.

When markets replace morals

In both the US and the UK, corporate domination has left society morally hollow, with citizens growing increasingly alienated from each other and their governments. Sanders describes this as a breakdown of social morality, where greed and profit are prioritized over care and cooperation. He explains how the scarcity mindset in the US drives people to compete with, and turn against, one another and scapegoat marginalized groups instead of addressing the root causes of inequality.

Bennett sees similar trends in the UK, where neoliberalism forces people to compete for basics like healthcare and stable employment, eroding collective responsibility and empathy. As a result, in both countries people feel abandoned by governments that prioritize the wealthy. This produces a survivalist mindset, and leads to social fragmentation and a decline in public trust in the state and one another.

The two-party trap

The issues in the UK and the US aren’t solely about morals, ideas, or policies – they are also deeply rooted in the political systems that govern these countries. Both Bennett and Sanders argue that the two-party systems in the UK and the US are complicit in perpetuating inequality by focusing more on maintaining power than addressing systemic issues.

Sanders critiques the US political establishment, highlighting how both Democrats and Republicans are heavily influenced by corporate donors and lobbyists. This influence ensures that mainstream politics continues to serve the interests of the wealthy, sidelining the needs of everyday citizens. The result is a political landscape shaped by the desires of an elite few, with little room for real change.

Similarly, Bennett critiques the two-party system in the UK, arguing that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system forces voters to choose between the ‘second-least-worst’ candidates, rather than offering genuine representation of diverse views. This system leads to parties prioritizing short-term electoral victories over addressing pressing issues like the climate crisis, wealth inequality and public wellbeing.

Bennett argues that this dynamic preserves the political status quo, marginalizing alternative ideas – especially progressive ones – while allowing far-right voices, such as Brexit supporters in the UK and figures like Donald Trump in the US, to gain traction. This occurs because, under the FPTP system, extremist views can gain full control by capturing one of the major parties, instead of being fairly represented in proportion to their actual public support.

No democracy to spread

Both Bennett and Sanders go further, arguing that democracy itself has been fundamentally undermined in both countries, though they describe this erosion in slightly different ways.

Sanders points to the 2020 US election, where billionaire contributions to campaigns totalled US$1.2 billion. He argues that the US has drifted far from true democracy and now resembles an oligarchy, where corporations and billionaires hold outsized power over policy decisions, media narratives and election outcomes. Corporate lobbying and campaign donations have twisted legislative priorities, resulting in a government that serves the wealthy at the expense of the people. According to Sanders, these ‘American oligarchs’ actively manipulate democracy to keep the population divided, angry and struggling, all while consolidating their own wealth and influence.

Bennett sees similar trends in the UK, though she describes the political system as resembling more of an aristocracy than an oligarchy. She explains how traditional elites maintain their grip on power by leveraging inherited wealth and entrenched influence in political and media circles, effectively shutting out alternative and progressive voices. This system, she argues, systematically excludes genuine progressive movements, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to engage with or influence the political process in any meaningful way.

Enough is enough

Amid these deteriorating conditions, systemic failures and cascading crises – including climate disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the fossil fuel crisis – people have had enough. These crises have spurred a wave of labour strikes, starting with climate protests in 2018 and expanding to strikes among nurses and transport workers in the UK, and Amazon and Starbucks workers in the US. Momentum has continued to build, with rising union membership and a growing call for fair wages, better working conditions, corporate accountability and strengthened public services.

In fact, in the US, 2023 marked one of the most active years for labour strikes in decades, with over 464,000 workers walking off the job. Industries from healthcare to automotive saw massive work stoppages as demand for higher wages, job security and protections from automation rose. High-profile strikes by the Writers Guild, Actors’ Union, and the United Auto Workers underscored widespread worker frustration with corporate greed and deteriorating labour conditions.

Meanwhile, in the UK, strikes have intensified across healthcare and transportation as NHS workers, postal employees and railway staff protest against austerity measures and wage stagnation that have battered public services since the pandemic – even though the pandemic brought frontline workers’ essential roles into focus and exposed the cracks in labour protections. In response, renewed interest in unions and collective bargaining has pushed UK workers to confront corporate and governmental neglect head-on. Moving away from ‘business unionism’, these strikes have adopted a more militant approach, building solidarity across industries and rallying younger workers eager to challenge corporate interests.

Beyond band-aids

In response to these mobilizations, both the UK and US governments introduced their versions of ‘Build Back Better’ initiatives. But these efforts were rooted in the very system that created the current crises, and as both authors argue, this approach cannot bring about genuine change. Both authors stress that superficial adjustments are insufficient. Instead they advocate for systemic transformation, and urge a rethink of societal values, and our relationship with – and place within – the environment.

For Sanders, addressing the root causes of inequality is essential. As he puts it bluntly, ‘Don’t hate Elon Musk – hate the system that created him.’ The problem, both authors argue, is not individual actors but a framework that perpetuates inequality and environmental degradation. Bennett likewise calls for a system change, noting, this would require ‘a transformation on an even greater scale than we saw in the UK after World War II, when there was an acknowledgement, at least for some, that the sacrifices of millions in wartime had to be repaid with security, health and prosperity.’

The new ideal

While both authors critique the failings of capitalism, they differ in their visions for the future. In Change Everything, Natalie Bennett offers a bold vision for a society built on environmental sustainability and community-led governance. She advocates a radical shift away from capitalist growth models which, she argues, drive environmental destruction and social inequality. Instead, Bennett envisions a future where communities manage resources locally, and prosperity is measured not by GDP but by wellbeing, equality and planetary health.

Similarly, in It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism, Bernie Sanders condemns capitalism’s exploitative nature and its inherent inequality and greed. He calls for a society rooted in economic justice, where universal healthcare, free education and job security are fundamental rights. Sanders advocates for a form of ‘moral capitalism’, where ‘the government ensures every citizen’s right to health, education and a fair wage.’

However, Bennett proposes a post-capitalist society centred on sustainability and community, promoting what she calls a ‘Green economy’. She argues for abandoning GDP as a success metric and prioritizing economic models that focus on sustainability, environmental limits and fair distribution.

While Bennett champions decentralization and local empowerment, Sanders supports a strong government role in safeguarding essential rights and curbing corporate influence. Their differing perspectives highlight Bennett’s vision of a fundamentally transformed society versus Sanders’ vision of a reformed system that works for the many, not the few.

Reclaiming work

Bennett and Sanders also diverge on how to reshape the role of work in achieving their respective visions.

In It’s Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism, Sanders examines the challenges and injustices faced by US workers in an uber-capitalist system. He argues that jobs have been devalued as corporate interests prioritize profit over fair wages, benefits and security.

Sanders highlights essential jobs in sectors like healthcare, education and retail, describing how these increasingly low-paid roles lack union protections and treat workers as disposable. He critiques exploitative practices, particularly in healthcare, where companies charge exorbitant fees while underpaying staff. Sanders also targets companies like Amazon and Starbucks where workers have fought to unionise and secure better wages and working conditions. He envisions policies like universal healthcare, paid family leave and higher minimum wages as essential to ensuring stability, dignity and a better future for workers.

Sanders also emphasizes worker empowerment. He critiques the loss of autonomy in modern labour conditions, where employees are forced into rigid roles that strip them of decision-making power and creativity. For Sanders, policies should allow workers to contribute ideas, set their own schedules, and shape their roles, creating a healthier and more fulfilling work environment. He also highlights the impact of AI on jobs, advocating for policies that protect workers as industries become more automated. Sanders believes technology should ‘reduce monotonous tasks’ and allow workers to ‘focus on creative, meaningful work’, calling for retraining programmes and education initiatives to equip workers with AI-relevant skills to make sure that they do not get left behind as technology advances.

In contrast, Bennett envisions a broader transformation of work. She challenges the traditional notion of jobs as solely paid labour within corporate structures, emphasizing the undervalued roles of caregiving and community work, which often go uncompensated. Bennett critiques the competitive job market, which turns individuals into rivals rather than fostering a sense of community. She champions Universal Basic Income (UBI), stating: ‘A Universal Basic Income would ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met, allowing them to pursue work that’s meaningful rather than survival-driven.’ Bennett’s vision encompasses a society where individuals contribute through art, community projects, or environmental initiatives without the constant threat of economic insecurity.

In sum, Sanders advocates for improving labour conditions within the existing system, while Bennett calls for redefining work altogether. Both agree that rethinking the role of work has broader implications for democracy and self-perception. Bennett sees this redefinition as a way to strengthen democracy by fostering community responsibility, while Sanders views workplace empowerment as a means to break the ‘corporate stranglehold’ on individuals’ lives.

Fixing climate

Hurricane Milton, Patrick Space Force Base, Florida, 10 October 2024. US Space Force photo by Senior Airman Spencer Contreras via Wikimedia Commons

This divergence also manifests in how the authors address climate change.

In It’s Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism, Sanders links the fight against climate change directly to job creation. He argues that transitioning to sustainable energy offers a critical opportunity to create millions of well-paid jobs. He asserts that tackling the climate crisis and shifting away from fossil fuels will require large-scale public investments in energy efficiency and sustainable infrastructure, which would lead to massive job growth in sectors like manufacturing, construction and green technology.

Sanders advocates for a Green New Deal that would reduce carbon emissions while addressing unemployment by guaranteeing jobs. His vision includes investments in renewable energy projects like solar and wind power, sustainable infrastructure and the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps to engage young people in the fight against climate change. For Sanders, this presents a transformative opportunity to combat both environmental degradation and economic inequality, ensuring that good-paying jobs serve a social and environmental purpose. He emphasizes that while a job guarantee programme would require significant investment, the cost of inaction – whether it be environmental disaster or continued economic inequality – would be far greater.

In Change Everything, Bennett takes a broader approach to climate change by situating it within a critique of economic and political systems. She argues that addressing the climate crisis requires more than just technological adjustments or market-based solutions. Bennett critiques mainstream approaches to climate change that rely on ‘business as usual with added technology’, insisting that such strategies fail to address the underlying societal structures driving environmental destruction. She argues that we cannot keep global warming below the critical 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold through superficial changes alone and calls for a complete overhaul of societal and economic systems to prioritize sustainability and equity.

Bennett views the current crisis as not only environmental but also political and economic, presenting an opportunity to build a more stable world. Her vision involves greater democratic participation, community empowerment, and a rejection of neoliberalism’s focus on competition and growth. For Bennett, solving the climate crisis requires profound shifts in how we work, consume and relate to the planet, rather than relying solely on technological fixes like renewable energy or carbon capture.

But perhaps, the divergence between Sanders and Bennett runs deeper, reflecting the core tension between eco-socialist and green visions. Sanders sees paid work as central to achieving emancipation and sustaining democracy, while Bennett believes that emancipation can be achieved through different channels – both on an individual basis, through UBI, and a collective one, through community.

Reimagining tomorrow

While the idea of societal transformation may seem daunting, both authors stress that new ways of caring for each other, connecting with communities and ensuring basic rights are within reach. Despite their differing approaches, both Sanders and Bennett share a common message: hope is essential, and meaningful change is possible – a message that many might need in today’s political climate where hope is often in short supply.

Though steps are being taken, as seen in the new Labour government’s platform and Kamala Harris’s electoral campaign, the public is signalling that they want more than incremental changes. The recent dissatisfaction with Labour – 43 per cent of Britons report that the party hasn’t achieved anything positive in its first 100 days – could reflect a desire for deeper, systemic reform. This should give pause to leaders like Harris, as it suggests a demand for transformation rather than superficial fixes.

This article was first published by Green European Journal on 31 October 2024.