---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <[email protected]> Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:39 AM Subject: The Church of Economism and Its Discontents (GTN Discussion) To: [email protected]
From Steve Marglin <[email protected]>
------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: Thanks again for all of the thought-provoking comments so far. Just a reminder that the open discussion will close at the end of Monday (11/30), after which Norgaard will have the opportunity to respond. -- Jonathan] A few comments about Richard Norgaard’s analysis of the church of economics. First, I agree with much, perhaps most, of his argument. I would go further though in situating the ideology of economics in modernity. Norgaard emphasizes individualism and self-interest as foundational assumptions, and these are key. But I would add three more assumptions: an ideology of desire that assumes wants are unlimited, an ideology of knowledge that prioritizes rationality, and an ideology of community that assumes the nation state is the primary, if not the only, community. Taken together, these are not only the assumptions of mainstream economics, but also the assumptions of modernity. Indeed, economics is the cutting edge of modernity, the formalization of its unconscious cultural presuppositions. So the challenge is larger than economics: it is one of redressing the extreme imbalance of the ideology of modernity. Many people see the ideology of modernity as liberating. And so it is when the imbalance is in the other direction: when communities stifle individuals, when the poor receive meager rations and are taught that to want more is a sin, when rationality is not allowed to challenge tradition, when the nation is suppressed by empire. But modernity too suffocates when society is regarded as nothing more than a collection of individuals; when having becomes being; when experience is denied, or, equivalently, is dismissed as superstition when it cannot be explained by the dominant rationality; when the nation state undermines other communities. The problem with modernity is not individualism. Neither is it individual desire, rationality, or the nation state. It is rather a state of imbalance in which these assumptions crowd out other ways of being and knowing. Yes, we need a new economics, and we need to situate this economics in a new set of cultural presuppositions, ones more suited to an age where sustainability is the watchword. And we need as well to pay attention to the point that John Ashton made in a recent post--"This is a political struggle as well as an intellectual one. There is no point in building a better theory if we cannot at the same time weaken the hold of the prevailing one over the choices made on our behalf." The success of the Keynesian revolution in economics, limited as it was, was in no small part due to its symbiosis with the political revolution of social democracy in Europe and the New Deal in the United States. It is no coincidence that the counter revolution in economics that brought us the new classical economics took place at about the same time that center-left coalitions responsible for the New Deal and social democracy came to grief. The failure of radical economics to create a new paradigm in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s cannot be attributed to a single cause. But the political failure of the New Left to build a new politics is certainly one of the reasons. If a new economics is to thrive it will only be in conjunction with a new politics. Some hoped for that new politics in the person of Barack Obama—and were disappointed. Some looked to Occupy—and were disappointed. Until we find the basis of a new politics, people like Richard Norgaard (I count myself among them) can plant seeds, but unless the soil and climate are favorable, the seeds will not flourish, and may not even germinate. Stephen Marglin Harvard University *********************************** Saturday, November 28, 2015
From John Ashton <[email protected]>
----- [Moderator's Note: Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far! It has been a very intellectually stimulating discussion. I just wanted to remind people that Monday--November 30--will be the last day to submit a comment. After that, Norgaard will have the opportunity to respond. -- Jonathan] Dear Friends Despite many years on this list, and a vocational commitment to its goals, I have not (forgive me) hitherto contributed to these debates. But Richard Norgaard’s essay and the ensuing discussion have been of such high quality, and so valuable for me in my work, that I wanted to express my gratitude to him and to everyone who has responded. I would also like to add something of my own that might, I hope, be helpful. I should confess immediately that I have no academic credentials and am not formally trained in economics. My formation was in physics, from which I defected at an early stage. Most of my career has been in diplomacy and politics, where I have at least been an active participant in economic policy debates. Latterly, after six years as the UK’s diplomatic envoy on climate change, I have become a kind of itinerant pontificator, speaking out about questions of politics and society from my experience and, by choice, without institutional or other ties. The collision between my training and my later experiences pushed me inexorably to a view of the neoclassical orthodoxy very close to that set out by Richard and elaborated, with greater rigour than I could ever muster, in this discussion. I came to feel that our biggest choices as societies were being made according to the reflexes of a system of belief that in many places is embedded in our institutions and has achieved hegemony over our politics. It is as if we had surrendered our destiny to a cult. This system acts as if its main objective were to tighten its own grip, though it is skilful in equating this falsely with the common good. It displays little genuine interest in what is real (loaded though that word is: in a sense the current crisis is rooted in confusion about reality and what we know or think we know about it). It cannot accommodate any commitment to the integrity of the social and ecological fabric, whose value it axiomatically denies. In its more flamboyant forms it even seeks to eviscerate the very idea of virtue (including care, to borrow Richard’s word) by claiming to embody it already through its totemic attachment to “efficiency”. Much of this came into focus for me in conversation last year with Bill Rees (who I think is a member of this list. I hope he won’t mind me referring to him in this way. I seek only to set out my views not his). We found ourselves giving complementary lectures at a meeting in Shanghai, and started talking. At the heart of our discussion was the question of power. This is a political struggle as well as an intellectual one. There is no point in building a better theory if we cannot at the same time weaken the hold of the prevailing one over the choices made on our behalf. A political struggle needs a political strategy. Nobody has a comprehensive view of what such a strategy might look like nor of how to build it. There has never been a greater endeavor. If it flourishes it will be the work of generations. But the following considerations seem important. Language will be crucial. It is the foundation of this project. It will not be enough to work conventionally through institutions, old or new, nor merely through campaigns and movements. We need at one and the same time to tell a story about the world and our place in it, and to find a new and compelling language in which to tell it. This is necessary because we are seeking to change the frame, not just to change the view from within the existing one. We should strive, without losing precision or honesty, for language that brings people towards us; that is accessible not forbidding. The academy must play a role, but reaching beyond its accustomed sphere. Emotion will count as much as analysis; poetry as much as prose. We should avoid language that is scarred or open to misrepresentation as a result of past struggles. We certainly need, in our story, a description of modern capitalism and its flaws. Success will result in the eclipse of what many people would call capitalism. But if people feel we simply want to reenact of an old play, we will attract allies we don’t want and repel those we need. The contending political forces, and a clear understanding of them, will be crucial. They will be at the centre of this project. How they combine and are marshaled will determine its outcome. At present, the forces of incumbency are well entrenched. Their position can seem impregnable. But I am struck, at least in post-crash Britain, by the decline in public confidence in the ability of incumbent powers to act in the public interest, and of public trust in their will to do so. As a result, my country for one is more divided and disgruntled than at any time in living memory. That is worrying if you live here. But it does mean that there is a large, uncommitted constituency for renewal. The extent to which young people have turned their backs in disenchantment on mainstream politics is particularly striking. They are a natural force for renewal. My generation (I’m 59) should do all we can to help them find their voice. The campaign by young economists in many universities to break out of the neoclassical monoculture is of special significance and should be encouraged. Battles will be crucial. Battles provide the drama and energy in any political project. They can sharpen the choices between change and the status quo. We must choose to fight on the right issues, on the right ground, at the right time. We need not win every battle. But each time we fight we should be looking to draw new forces into the arena on our side, and to open up new political spaces into which to advance. It is not for me to judge, but I wonder if now is the time for a concerted intellectual assault, from inside and outside academic economics, on the neoclassical citadels: in teaching, in the peer review process, in wider public discourse, and as an uncontested orthodoxy influencing politics and much else. The orthodoxy has for some time been subject to incursions, including by participants in this discussion. But there is surely scope for a more sustained and strategic approach, with greater alignment across heterodox economics and the many other disciplines that have much to contribute. The goal would not of course be to search for any illusory “unified theory”. It would have a liberating effect simply to make it more widely evident that the neoclassical emperor has no clothes. Finally, even more than language, political forces, and battles, values will be crucial. This is a transformational struggle and therefore, in a sense, a revolutionary one. Most revolutions either fail or become corrupted in success. And, in this case, the aim is the peaceful overthrow a system of belief, not the defeat by any means of people in thrall to that system. There is indeed no well- defined enemy; or perhaps more accurately we are all the enemy, so entangled have we become in the current system (its beneficiaries, though, more than its victims). If this is a revolution, it must at every stage be compassionate and rooted in reality. It is because the current system has rejected compassion and reality that it has become so destructive. We must not under any circumstances take on the form of what we seek to overthrow. Our end can never justify our means. In any political struggle, the values with which it is conducted become frozen into the outcome. Forgive me for writing at greater length than I originally intended. I am not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth; only to share some thoughts of my own in the hope that they will be useful. Some of you may feel that I have tried to reach too far beyond the original scope of this debate. The hegemony of a set of economic ideas is far from the only flaw in modern politics. But wider renewal will remain out of reach until it is broken. And in the end this debate is about our relationship with each other and with the ecosphere of which we are part. There is very little in human affairs that it does not encompass. With gratitude and respect , John Ashton ******************************************************** Friday, October 30, 2015
From Paul Raskin <[email protected]>
----- GTN Friends: I write to launch our NOVEMBER DISCUSSION, which will consider Richard Norgaard’s new GTI essay, “The Church of Economism and Its Discontents.” Please read it at www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discontents, and consider commenting. Is orthodox economics akin to a secular religion? Are we living in the “Econocene”? Is there a way out? Norgaard, a founder of ecological economics, argues yes, yes, and maybe. In so doing, he guides us further into the terrain of alternative economics we’ve explored recently in our discussions of GTI pieces by Herman Daly, Giorgos Kallis, Peter Barnes, and John Bellamy Foster. I wonder, though: * Is economism still a monolithic ideology? Or are critical currents within the economics mainstream increasingly questioning its reductionist framework and false predictions? * As a framing for our contemporary condition, is “the Econocene” a useful corrective to the geologic emphasis of “the Anthropocene”? How do these compare to GTI’s term, “The Planetary Phase of Civilization,” which aims to convey the multi-dimensionality of the globalizing social-ecological system? I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts on these and other issues raised by Norgaard’s stimulating essay. Comments are welcome through NOVEMBER 30. Looking forward, Paul Raskin GTI Director NOTE ON GTI’S PUBLICATION CYCLE: GTN discussions occur in ODD-NUMBERED months, and GTI publishes in EVEN-NUMBERED months. Each discussion takes up a new essay or viewpoint prior to its publication. After the discussion closes, GTI publishes the piece, edited comments from the discussion, and a response from the author (along with other new articles). You can review all GTN discussions at www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-forum. ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/171-the-church-of-econo... Need help? Email [email protected] -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/