No subject

.org</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
-----<br>
[Moderator&#39;s Note: Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far! It=
 has been a very intellectually stimulating discussion. I just wanted to re=
mind people that Monday--November 30--will be the last day to submit a comm=
ent. After that, Norgaard will have the opportunity to respond. -- Jonathan=
]<br>
<br>
Dear Friends<br>
<br>
Despite many years on this list, and a vocational commitment to its goals, =
I have not (forgive me) hitherto contributed to these debates.<br>
<br>
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 ex=
press my gratitude to him and to everyone who has responded. I would also l=
ike to add something of my own that might, I hope, be helpful.<br>
<br>
I should confess immediately that I have no academic credentials and am not=
 formally trained in economics.<br>
<br>
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 year=
s as the UK=E2=80=99s diplomatic envoy on climate change, I have become a k=
ind of itinerant pontificator, speaking out about questions of politics and=
 society from my experience and, by choice, without institutional or other =
ties.<br>
<br>
The collision between my training and my later experiences pushed me inexor=
ably 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 th=
is discussion.<br>
<br>
I came to feel that our biggest choices as societies were being made accord=
ing to the reflexes of a system of belief that in many places is embedded i=
n our institutions and has achieved hegemony over our politics. It is as if=
 we had surrendered our destiny to a cult.<br>
<br>
This system acts as if its main objective were to tighten its own grip, tho=
ugh it is skilful in equating this falsely with the common good. It display=
s 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 th=
e integrity of the social and ecological fabric, whose value it axiomatical=
ly denies.<br>
<br>
In its more flamboyant forms it even seeks to eviscerate the very idea of v=
irtue (including care, to borrow Richard=E2=80=99s word) by claiming to emb=
ody it already through its totemic attachment to =E2=80=9Cefficiency=E2=80=
=9D.<br>
<br>
Much of this came into focus for me in conversation last year with Bill Ree=
s (who I think is a member of this list. I hope he won=E2=80=99t mind me re=
ferring to him in this way. I seek only to set out my views not his). We fo=
und ourselves giving complementary lectures at a meeting in Shanghai, and s=
tarted talking. At the heart of our discussion was the question of power.<b=
r>
<br>
This is a political struggle as well as an intellectual one. There is no po=
int in building a better theory if we cannot at the same time weaken the ho=
ld of the prevailing one over the choices made on our behalf.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Language will be crucial. It is the foundation of this project.<br>
<br>
It will not be enough to work conventionally through institutions, old or n=
ew, 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 ne=
w 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 t=
he existing one.<br>
<br>
We should strive, without losing precision or honesty, for language that br=
ings 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.<br>
<br>
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 wha=
t many people would call capitalism. But if people feel we simply want to r=
eenact of an old play, we will attract allies we don=E2=80=99t want and rep=
el those we need.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
At present, the forces of incumbency are well entrenched. Their position ca=
n seem impregnable.<br>
<br>
But I am struck, at least in post-crash Britain, by the decline in public c=
onfidence 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 on=
e is more divided and disgruntled than at any time in living memory.<br>
That is worrying if you live here. But it does mean that there is a large, =
uncommitted constituency for renewal.<br>
<br>
The extent to which young people have turned their backs in disenchantment =
on mainstream politics is particularly striking. They are a natural force f=
or renewal. My generation (I=E2=80=99m 59) should do all we can to help the=
m find their voice. The campaign by young economists in many universities t=
o break out of the neoclassical monoculture is of special significance and =
should be encouraged.<br>
<br>
Battles will be crucial. Battles provide the drama and energy in any politi=
cal project. They can sharpen the choices between change and the status quo=
.<br>
<br>
We must choose to fight on the right issues, on the right ground, at the ri=
ght 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.<br>
<br>
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 ne=
oclassical citadels: in teaching, in the peer review process, in wider publ=
ic discourse, and as an uncontested orthodoxy influencing politics and much=
 else.<br>
<br>
The orthodoxy has for some time been subject to incursions, including by pa=
rticipants in this discussion. But there is surely scope for a more sustain=
ed and strategic approach, with greater alignment across heterodox economic=
s and the many other disciplines that have much to contribute. The goal wou=
ld not of course be to search for any illusory =E2=80=9Cunified theory=E2=
=80=9D. It would have a liberating effect simply to make it more widely evi=
dent that the neoclassical emperor has no clothes.<br>
<br>
Finally, even more than language, political forces, and battles, values wil=
l be crucial.<br>
<br>
This is a transformational struggle and therefore, in a sense, a revolution=
ary one.<br>
<br>
Most revolutions either fail or become corrupted in success. And, in this c=
ase, the aim is the peaceful overthrow a system of belief, not the defeat b=
y any means of people in thrall to that system. There is indeed no well- de=
fined 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).<br>
<br>
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 r=
eality that it has become so destructive. We must not under any circumstanc=
es 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 conducte=
d become frozen into the outcome.<br>
<br>
Forgive me for writing at greater length than I originally intended. I am n=
ot trying to put words in anyone=E2=80=99s mouth; only to share some though=
ts of my own in the hope that they will be useful. Some of you may feel tha=
t I have tried to reach too far beyond the original scope of this debate. T=
he 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. An=
d 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.<br>
<br>
With gratitude and respect , John Ashton<br>
<br>
********************************************************<br>
<br>
Friday, October 30, 2015<br>
<br>