Chris Dillow: Why not full employment?

Chris Dillow asks Why not full employment?.

And, they say — channeling Kalecki:

Guaranteed employment does not conform to the dominant ideology of capitalist societies which is generally internalized by practically everyone in the society, including workers.

This ideology, they say, manifests itself in several ways hostile to full employment policies. For example, the unemployed are blamed for their plight; governments are deemed to incompetent to implement proper macro policies or a jobs guarantee; and there’s a fear that union militancy will price workers out of jobs. In this sense, the lack of demand for full employment policies is another manifestation of the political dominance of the 1%. As Steven Lukes wrote:

Is it not the supreme and most insidious use of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable? (Power: a radical view)

All this raises a thought. Could it be that the main obstacle to full employment policies is not so much one of technical economics so much as ideology and politics?

Emphasis Mine

I agree that the consciousness of the working class is utterly dominated by the Capitalists. This has impeded the development of SYRIZA, the Occupy Movement, and unions as they try to reform the system. There comes a point when their demands threaten the system. At that point, most people want to preserve the system rather than overthrow because they reasonably see chaos in the collapse. They have no faith in any alternatives.

The examination and publicity of alternatives, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Rojava (Kurdistan), are important. When people see alternatives existing and surviving against enormous odds, they can see options for themselves.