Which Third Way?

Abstract

Clinton and Blair have extolled a Third Way policy which is supposed to go beyond the policies of the present world where the `First Way' (capitalism) rules and the Second (socialism) failed. Clinton's Third Way ennumerated positive changes in theory, such as universal health care, equity in the tax code, national education standards and preschool. But in practice, the third way has only resulted in `welfare reform' and a free-trade pact with Mexico and Canada. Blair's policies for the UK mirrored those of the US, and other countries are now talking of the Third Way as a progressive advance. In fact the so-called Third Way, as presently conceived, serves the ends of multinational capital. I show this by reworking Marx's labour theory of value. This article explains the tension between the speed of production and the way that the reproduction of natural resources, including labour-power, cannot keep pace with that speed. Capital does not want to wait for natural resources and labour-power to regenerate, and therefore finds them by going further afield. Hence the endorsement of free trade pacts and globalization by the Third Way, and proposed multilateral agreements (such as the multilateral agreement on investment, or MAI). Under the Third Way, space for the expansion of corporations is doing well, while time for the generational reproduction of people is faring badly with legislation restricting welfare and other social provisions. I conclude that a real Third Way would have to be based on small business, and allow for the reproduction time of natural resources and labour-power.