By Flying Stag on January 2, 2010
Although bloggers are generally agreed that dramatic economic change is necessary, the practical suggestions being put forward appear to me to be still essentially ‘inside the box’. In contrast, it has also been pointed out that what we are seeking is a new paradigm.
In the following I use the word ‘econocapitalism’ instead of ‘economics’. I do this to emphasise my view that (outside this blog!) the bulk of what is written about ‘economics’ is inevitably written from a capitalist viewpoint. The lifeblood of capitalism is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it is difficult to gear our minds to any alternative.
So, how should we set about seeking a new paradigm?
Firstly, we need to acknowledge that the self-view of some econocapitalists – as has been said elsewhere – that their subject is as solid as any derived from Newtonian physics, is unhelpful in the extreme. Just ask a Newtonian physicist! or any derivative scientist or technologist. Porritt has pointed out that econocapitalists are as close to ‘biological and thermodynamic illiteracy as it is possible to get’; or, as I have put it in an earlier comment, they are forever expecting us to believe that they are performing the Indian rope trick.
Next, can we identify any other relevant paradigm shifts? If so, can we learn from them; and did the post-shift paradigm appear as a dramatic transformation of the pre-shift, or did it appear from somewhere altogether different?
I have previously suggested that two paradigm shifts are worthy of consideration in this regard: 1) the shift from astrology to astronomy; and 2) the shift from alchemy to chemistry. I make these suggestions in the belief that our modern views of astrology and alchemy will be closely analogous to the view of future historians of present-day econocapitalism.
So, what were the driving forces behind these shifts, who were those who implemented them; how long did they take; and most importantly, were these evolutionary or ‘step’ changes?
Perhaps other bloggers may be aware of research that may throw light on these questions.
3 Comments
I couldn’t resist the challenge from ‘Flying Stag’ – so here are some thoughts on issues and reading!!
I have finally got around to reading Arblaster’s book on liberalism. It is really challenging. It is great in pointing up from nineteenth century sources just how amoral the idea of growth was in its origins and then linking this to the development of neoliberalism as a resurgence of those early 19th century ideas. A new book by Serge Latouche ‘A Farewell to Growth’ seems to be bringing it all together – I say ‘seems’ because I haven’t quite finished reading it. So far there is a lot about ‘the local’ and I’m hoping he will get on to what needs to be done at the global level to support this.
To me it seems that this is all about putting equality first in all our thinking along with ethics, because these two all important features of human life have been sadly missing from the development of political ideas over the last century. When we thought our society was making progress in this direction it was fundamentally still locked into those early 19th century assumptions of elites and power and disposable poor,… perhaps fundamentally through ‘economics’ as a discipline?
If economics and the corporations are part of the problem then let’s for instance change the legal constitution of the corporation. David Korten who has been writing about globalisation for some time now focuses on this on his web site. Hertie School of Governance have a paper on adding human rights responsibilities to obligations of corporations to allow people to sue them under Human rights legislation (lots of other sources there) and I found on the web something on NGO Alternative Treaties on the UN web site for 2002 Sustainability summit… so these ideas are around. Any more suggestions?
In relation to possible new paradigm, I have been mulling over a section in the final chapter of The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s great book about the known but unacknowledged effects of economic inequality.
The final chapter, Building The Future, starts to look at a number of suggestions to reduce inequality and thus address the resulting social ills, and considers among other things the impact of technological and digital advances on marginal costs, so that once the initial outlay has been made the costs of further production are minimal.
They say “once the capital cost has been incurred, the more people sharing the benefits the better” – a simple statement but one profoundly divergent from the ethos behind econocapitalism – to the extent that I read it, had to re-read it, and thought “how on earth would that work?”
Later on they say: “From the point of view of society as a a whole, the tendency for technological change to reduce marginal costs is rapidly tipping the balance away from allowing profit-maximising corporations to to control the distribution of goods. Increasingly they can only rely on the remnants of monopolistic power provided by patents or copyright. We need to find new ways to pay organisations and individuals for life-enhancing research, creativity and innovation – the geese which lay the golden eggs – which does not then restrict access to the benefits.”
In terms of paradigm shift, I’m also thinking of Michael Sandel’s 2009 Reith Lectures and how they deconstructed the science of (capitalist) economics to show that something that was intended as a tool to assist government and the understanding of social issues has become the dominant, almost religiously exclusive, rationale for deciding on and evaluating any particular policy direction. These can still be accessed on the BBC website.
There was also a recent edition of Resurgence magazine devoted entirely to the theme of money and concepts of money and finance that has interesting references.
IN terms of the paradigm shifts mentioned in the initial theread I think these are qualitatively different from what we are dealing with here. Both those science based shifts were at a time when academics and academic thought were the concern of a relatively few people in society – there were no mass media to involve the general population. Those concerned were operating at a level for themselves. Secondly these shifts were not about social change, though they did lead to change.
I think a more relevant issue is not quite a paradigm shift but the way in which the free market ideas apparently triumphed in the 1980s. These ideas were not just academic concerns but were related to the actual and real organisation of society and the structures within it.
The political expression of Thatcherism and Reaganism and the concomitant liberalisation of markets were underpinned and based on academic and analytical ideas from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. These ideas were promulgated by a series of think tank, research institutes and university departments in a coherent fashion designed to change the mindset of academics and opinion formers. The fact that these ideas suited large corporations was a real bonus to getting them into law, govt policy and concrete forms but the real battle was in the minds of informed people who became convinced about liberalisation and free markets. Once this was achieved the poilitcal consequences followed – ideas preceeded action.
The paradigm shift a lot of us are after does not so far have this coherence and singleminded approach of those free marketeers. We are handicapped because our views challenge the existing structures of power, both political and economic. Our movement is also disparate with many aims and analyses. These are strengths of course but also militate against a paradigm shift.
Marxism in the 19th century also had ideas which underpinned actions. The gaia hypothesis underpinned a lot of changing thought but has now run its course.
I don’t know an answer but we are all looking for one unifying thoughtn process to bring us together.