No subject

-----
[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=E2=80=99s essay and the ensuing discussion have been o=
f 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=E2=80=99s diplomatic envoy on climate change, I have become a kin=
d 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=E2=80=99s word) by claiming to em=
body it
already through its totemic attachment to =E2=80=9Cefficiency=E2=80=9D.

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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t want and re=
pel
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=E2=80=99m 59) should do all we can to help th=
em 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 =E2=80=9Cunified the=
ory=E2=80=9D. 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=E2=80=99s mouth; only to share some thoug=
hts 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