what you get here

This is not a blog which opines on current events. It rather uses incidents, books (old and new), links and papers to muse about our social endeavours.
So old posts are as good as new! And lots of useful links!

The Bucegi mountains - the range I see from the front balcony of my mountain house - are almost 120 kms from Bucharest and cannot normally be seen from the capital but some extraordinary weather conditions allowed this pic to be taken from the top of the Intercontinental Hotel in late Feb 2020
Showing posts sorted by date for query why I blog. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query why I blog. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2026

About Capitalism

 Talking to my Daughter about the Economy Varoufakis (2018)

Besides the works of literature and the poems mentioned in the text, as well as the science-fiction movies without which I find it hard to understand the present, I shall mention four books: Jared Diamond’s Guns, Steel and Germs, which underpins the story in the first chapter that explains the emergence of gross inequities and, ultimately, racist stereotyping; Richard Titmuss’s The Gift Relationship, whose discussion of the blood market underscores ideas first developed in Karl Polanyi’s Great Transformation; Robert Heilbroner’s majestic The Worldly Philosophers; and novelist Margaret Atwood’s Payback, which I recommend unreservedly as perhaps the best, and most entertaining, book ever written on debt.

Finally, it would be remiss not to mention the spectre of Karl Marx, the dramaturgy of the ancient Athenian tragedians, John Maynard Keynes’s clinical dissection of the so-called ‘fallacy of composition’ and lastly the irony and insights of Bertolt Brecht. Their stories, theories and obsessions haunt every thought I ever had, including the ones laid down in this book.

And this is a useful summary of what the book is trying to say - Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: A Brief History of Capitalism” is a book written 
by Yanis Varoufakis, an economist and former Greek finance minister. The book aims to
explain complex economic concepts in a simple and accessible manner, targeting a general
audience, including the author’s daughter.
In the book, Varoufakis provides an engaging and insightful overview of the history of
capitalism, tracing its origins and evolution from ancient times to the modern era.
He delves into the key economic ideas and theories that have shaped the world we live in,
including the role of markets, money, and finance.
Varoufakis also highlights the inherent flaws and inequalities within the capitalist system
and discusses how these issues have contributed to various economic crises throughout history.
He addresses contemporary challenges, such as the increasing wealth gap and the impact of
globalization, offering his perspectives on potential solutions and alternatives for a more
equitable economic future.
Overall, “Talking to My Daughter About the Economy” presents a captivating and approachable
exploration of the complex world of economics, making it accessible to readers who may not
have a background in the subject while encouraging critical thinking about the current economic
system and its implications for society.
Key concepts and ideas.
  1. Capitalism’s Historical Development: The book provides a historical overview of how 
    capitalism evolved over time. It traces its roots back to ancient civilizations,
    through feudalism and mercantilism, to the industrial revolution and the emergence
    of modern capitalist societies.
  2. The Role of Markets and Money: Varoufakis explains the significance of markets in 
    capitalist economies as mechanisms for the exchange of goods and services.
    He also discusses the importance of money as a means of facilitating these exchanges
    and its role in shaping economic activities.
  3. Invisible Hand and Self-Interest: The book explores Adam Smith’s concept of the 
    “invisible hand,” the idea that individuals pursuing their self-interest in a
    competitive market can unintentionally benefit society as a whole.
  4. The Division of Labour and Productivity: Varoufakis discusses how the division of 
    labor and specialization in capitalist economies have contributed to increased productivity
    and economic growth.
  5. Capital and Surplus Value: The author delves into the concept of capital and how surplus 
    value is generated in capitalist systems through the exploitation of labor, often leading
    to income inequality.
  6. The Great Depression and Economic Crises: The book examines historical economic crises, 
    including the Great Depression of the 1930s, to illustrate the inherent instabilities
    and vulnerabilities of capitalist economies.
  7. Globalization and Financialization: Varoufakis explores the impacts of globalization and 
    financialization on economies worldwide, emphasizing how these processes have transformed
    the nature of capitalism in recent decades.
  8. Income Inequality and Wealth Concentration: The book addresses the growing issue of income 
    inequality and the concentration of wealth among a small segment of the population, which
    can have detrimental effects on social cohesion and economic stability.
  9. The Role of Governments: The author discusses the role of governments in managing 
    capitalist economies, including their responsibilities for regulation, social welfare,
    and addressing market failures.
  10. Alternatives and Proposals: Throughout the book, Varoufakis presents alternative economic 
    ideas and policies that aim to address the shortcomings of capitalism and promote a fairer
    and more sustainable economic system.
  11. Economic Democracy: One of the core themes is the notion of “economic democracy,” which 
    involves giving citizens a more direct say in economic decisions that affect their lives,
    rather than leaving these choices exclusively to market forces and corporations.
  12. Social Responsibility and Solidarity: The book promotes the idea of fostering a sense of 
    social responsibility and solidarity among individuals and societies, aiming for a more
    compassionate and just economic order.
Overall, “Talking to My Daughter About the Economy” presents a comprehensive exploration 
of capitalism and its historical development, offering readers an engaging and thought
-provoking perspective on the complex world of economics and its impact on society.
The Destiny of Civilisation – finance capitalism, industrial capitalism
or socialism
Michael Hudson
(2022)

Michael’s decision to shift to economics was dramatic. One evening, af­ter moving to New York planning to publish the works of Schenker, George Lukacs and others, he had dinner with Terence McCarthy, an Irish com­munist and translator of Karl Marx’s Theories of Surplus Value. The con­versation turned to how changes in water levels caused crop failures in the United States that led to an autumnal drain of money from the stock and bond market, and hence to periodic financial crises. In Michael’s words, “to me, these interconnections between production, finance and the over­all economy’s systemic relationships were so beautiful, so aesthetic in their unfolding—like musical counterpoint leading to modulation to a higher overtone key—that I decided on the spot to become an economist.” Ever since, he says, he has been able to achieve in his economic writing what he could not have created in music.

Michael’s first training followed his acceptance of the condition Terence McCarthy set to mentor him: that he would read all the works in the bib­liography of Marx’s Theories of Surplus Value. So while taking his graduate degrees and working for Wall Street banks, Michael also worked part-time for the publisher Augustus Kelley to recommend and write introductions to reprints of economic classics. In the process, he acquired a library of books by economists missing from the “normal” history of economic thought.

Childhood and teenage experience—in an adversarial position

Michael’s disposition certainly has a lot to do with his family and social background during his formative years. He was born in March 1939 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, into a family of labor activists. Of all the cities in the world, Minneapolis had the strongest Trotskyist influence. Michael’s father, Carlos Hudson, had worked with Leon Trotsky in Mexico and had been one of the leaders of the great Minneapolis general strike of 1934 as editor of the Northwest Organizer. His father loved Huckleberry Finn, and Michael was called “Huck” by family and friends. But since his father’s par­ty name was Jack Ranger, Michael as a boy also was nicknamed “The son of the Lone Ranger.”

When Michael was three years old, Carlos Hudson was jailed under the Smith Act as one of the Minneapolis 17. Carlos remarked that his year in prison was the happiest time of his life, being assigned to the library, where he collected a long list of proverbs that Michael reproduced on his blog in June 2017. Reading “Dad’s Many Proverbs,” one might come to see not only how J is for Junk Economics came to be structured, but also where Michael’s remarkable sense of humor and witty comments can be traced.

When he was growing up in Chicago, visitors to his house included former German colleagues of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, and members of the Third International when Lenin was still alive and in pow­er. There was almost constant discussion of socialist doctrine and tactics in the meetings convened in his home. When Michael was 14 years old, in the University of Chicago’s high school, he was called a fascist by Stalinists and a communist by fascists. He told me, “I was very happy being in an adversarial position, yet also the reasonable voice avoiding ideology. I liked being hated by the right-wing because it made me a lot of friends and I re­cruited many members into the socialist youth groups in Chicago.”

Getting more confident and stronger when put in an adversarial position probably has been one of the key traits of his life. Michael has never accept­ed the world as it is, with its frauds, hypocrisy and injustice. Yet it has taken more than self-confidence and a strong spine to become the great econo­mist that he is today. One reason for his brilliance and uniqueness is that he has not been swayed by his academic training in the unrealistic theories of the economics schools in the universities that justify rather than critically challenge the status quo. Michael has developed his analytic ideas through his real-life work experience in many countries, combined with his deep understanding of the history of economic thought.

Wall Street bank experience—countering ideology

While employed by Wall Street banks as a statistical economist to under­stand how the financialized economy works, Michael studied for a Master’s and then a PhD degree in economics at New York University. According to him, most teachers in the master’s program at NYU were part-time. The relatively few full-time academics had no experience working in a bank or corporation; their worldview came from textbooks. Michael fortunately found out for himself how the banks worked, starting as a statistical ana­lyst for the Savings Bank Trust for three years, and then as balance-of-pay­ments economist for the Chase Manhattan Bank from 1964 to 1967.

Initially, Michael’s job was to trace how savings were recycled into new mortgage loans by New York’s savings banks. His research showed that most deposits grew not by new saving, but simply by the accrual of div­idends at compound interest. This exponential growth was recycled into new mortgage loans to buyers of real estate, seeking ever larger debt/eq­uity ratios in order to dispose of the surplus finance capital. He saw that commercial banks did not lend money to finance new industrial capital investment, but only lent against existing assets, seeking above all to turn their profits or rents into a flow of interest payments. In short, rents were for paying interest. And increasingly today, so are wages, because payments on bank loans, mortgage loans, student debt and credit-card debt eat away at the disposable income of most families. This is the monthly “nut” that households pay to the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector off the top of their paychecks.

Later, at Chase Manhattan, Michael compiled statistics to trace how the export earnings of foreign countries were captured into paying debt service. He also traced statistically how U.S. oil companies made profits by “transfer pricing,” selling crude oil production cheaply to tax-free “non-countries” such as Liberia or Panama that used U.S. currency. The oil was then re-sold to refineries in Europe and the USA at a mark-up so high that oil compa­nies had no profits to report, and hence paid no income tax anywhere on their international and domestic operations. To U.S. policy makers, this exploitation was a success story. In 1966 the oil industry had copies of Mi­chael’s report placed on the desk of every senator and representative, and obtained special favoritism as a result of the sector’s strong contribution to the U.S. balance of payments during the Vietnam War years.

The conflict between this reality and academic orthodoxy struck him in 1968 when he had to retake the money-and-banking part of his PhD orals, because his answers were based on his real-world monetary and financial experience, which was at odds with the Chicago School monetarism and vulgarized Keynesian liberalism that had become the academic norm. That was an era when textbooks still taught of helicopters dropping money on the economy—not acknowledging the principle that Michael has made at many monetary conferences ever since: the central bank’s helicopter only flies over Wall Street. Money from this helicopter is lent out to buyers of real estate, stocks and bonds (and to corporate raiders), with little being spent on goods and services. So the effect is asset-price inflation—which Michael has shown leads to debt deflation as homeowners need to borrow higher and higher mortgage loans to afford the debt-inflated cost of hous­ing, leaving them with less to spend on real goods and services. This now-obvious linkage between rising housing costs and debt de­flation was deemed heresy in the 1960s. Mainstream economists thought that as families became wealthier homeowners, they would have more to spend—ignoring the debt dimension of how homes were bought on credit that steadily pushed up the cost of obtaining housing. The Finance, Insur­ance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector was (and still is) treated as if its rentier income should be added to the economy’s output instead of siphoning it off.

Economic historian—delving into the origins of money and debt

Michael’s experience on Wall Street inspired him to set about investigating the origins of money and replacing the individualistic theories of its ori­gin with a more realistic and historically based explanation. His technical articles and monographs are now accepted as documenting how money originated, not in barter among individuals, but as a means of palatial ac­counting in Bronze Age Mesopotamia, above all to denominate debts owed to the palace, temples and other creditors in grain and silver as common denominators whose units were set as having equal value for fiscal pay­ments to the palace.

Michael also has shown that instead of interest being invented by in­dividuals lending cattle or grain to reflect productivity rates (as Austrian theory imagines), early interest rates were set by the palaces or other civic authorities simply on the basis of ease of accounting, in terms of the local system of fractions—60ths in Mesopotamia and Egypt, decimals in Egypt and Greece, and the 12-based duodecimal system in Rome (1 troy ounce on the pound per year), increasingly decimalized into 1 percent per month. Finally, he has applied this historical analysis to modern times by show­ing that throughout history, debts have grown at compound interest faster than the economy is able to pay, leading to foreclosures and economic po­larization if the debts are not cancelled. Indeed, for this reason, personal debts were cancelled when new rulers took the throne in Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt and their neighboring lands, in contrast to Greek and Roman oligar­chic opposition to debt cancellation and imposition of pro-creditor laws.

Michael’s insights into the workings of modern financialized rent-seeking economies, both within the United States and globally, have prompted him to conduct years of research not only into the origins of money and account­ing, but into the origins of labor and how it was paid, the origins of land tenure and taxation, and the origins and history of debt. This analysis has led to his well-known proposition that “debts that can’t be paid, won’t be paid,” and to his advocacy that unpayable debts should be cancelled, and can be cancelled without causing economic disruption—and indeed that without doing so, economies will polarize and crash.

At the World Social Forums, I had marched with tens of thousands of participants, including Samir Amin and Immanuel Wallerstein, with a banner whose slogan “Don’t owe, won’t pay” demanded cancellation of debts for impoverished countries of the Global South. However, I some­times wondered if the slogan was chanted by many from a political posi­tion without a deep understanding of how the debts were generated. The slogan would be meek if it were only a political position to express the distress of the indebted countries and peoples, without an appreciation of why and how the debts should be cancelled.

Michael’s advocacy of debt cancellation does not come from a simplis­tic political position, though certainly the proposition itself is profoundly political. The proposition comes from his insider knowledge of the oper­ation of banks, oil companies, the government and even the military. This experience informed his understanding of the domestic and global politics of the United States, and of the financial dynamics of debt and the long history of debt cancellation in antiquity. Exempt from academic dogma­tism and left-wing infantilism, Michael’s economic theories are based on decades of pragmatic statistical and historical inquiry, backed by his earlier training in cultural history as well as his comprehensive reading of Marx’s economic works.

Staunch critic of U.S. Super Imperialism

Working for the accounting firm Arthur Anderson, Michael spent a year analyzing the U.S. balance of payments. His statistics showed that the en­tire payments deficit resulted from military spending on the Vietnam War and elsewhere. Seeking ways to finance that military deficit led the U.S. Government to ameliorate the worsening balance-of-payments deficit by asking U.S. banks to set up branches in offshore banking centers to attract the world’s criminal capital, from drug dealings to kleptocratic embezzle­ment (the world’s new “neoliberal” sectors). This outgrowth of oil-indus­try “flags of convenience” has led to today’s crisis of tax enclaves enabling the world’s wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid taxation and file fictitious economic statistics. Michael has exposed this in numerous intro­ductions to books and in interviews in documentary films.

Michael’s understanding of how the global economy under U.S. hege­mony worked enabled him to forecast in Ramparts in 1968 that the USA would have to go off gold, which it indeed did in August 1971. Explaining how ending the gold standard had inaugurated the U.S. Treasury-bill stan­dard that obliged foreign governments to finance the U.S. balance-of-pay­ments and domestic budget deficits, his first book, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1972), gained him international recognition and has been translated into many languages. He had hoped to help countries resist the system of dollarization that has enabled the United States to obtain a free ride for its foreign military spending and takeover of other economies. But from the very beginning, the U.S. Government used the book as a how-to-do-it manual. Michael was quickly employed by Herman Kahn’s Hudson Institute to explain to the White House and the Department of Defense how the new international financial order worked.

The success of Michael’s books led many Wall Street and Canadian fi­nancial institutions to retain him as a consultant forecasting interest rates and currency exchange rates. The Canadian government invited him as fi­nancial advisor to develop the balance-of-payments dimension of what has become Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), showing that Canada did not need foreign loans to finance its provincial and other domestic spending. His book describing why Canada did not need foreign borrowing for its provinces and companies to spend domestically, Canada in the New Mone­tary Order (1978), showed that when Canada borrowed abroad, the central bank still had to create domestic money in any case to be spent locally as a counterpart to the foreign currency inflow. Hardly by surprise, this led to passionate attacks by Canada’s banks seeking to profiteer by indebting the economy through their loan underwriting. But it also led to further con­tracts with Canada’s State Department and Science Council.

In the late 1970s, Michael was invited by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) to become economic advisor on North-South debt and trade. He warned of the coming Latin American debt defaults, which indeed began in 1982 with Mexico. He subsequently has served as economic advisor to numerous governments, agencies and political parties from Latvia to Greece. He has argued for national protec­tionism and capital controls to resist free-trade imperialism, for domestic money creation to finance domestic spending on less inflationary terms than borrowing foreign currency, and for the need to tax and limit rentier gains in real estate and finance.

Academic and theoretical contributions

Michael has worked within academia on sustained intellectual inquiry. For many years he was on the economics faculty of the University of Mis­souri at Kansas City (UMKC), which became the center of MMT in the early 2000s with Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton and Bill Black. He was Economic Research Director at the Riga Graduate School of Law (RGSL), where he became Chief of the Committee of Experts for the Renewal Task Force Latvia (rtfl.lv). As for his most well-known academic inquiry, that into the history of debt and money, he was appointed a research fellow in Babylonian economics at the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Eth­nology at Harvard University, where he organized a colloquium every few years from 1994 onward. The five volumes of conference colloquia that he has co-edited have rewritten the economic history of the ancient Near East and classical antiquity.

These colloquia were on privatization, land tenure and real estate own­ership (which were found to be based on fiscal liability), debt cancellation and economic renewal, the origins of money and accounting, and the or­igins of labor services (discovered to have arisen to work on public infra­structure and to work off personal debts). The findings of these colloquia and their members refute previous libertarian individualistic theorizing on economic origins, and have now become the new orthodoxy among Assyr­iologists, Egyptologists and anthropologists, most notably Michael’s friend David Graeber, who wrote his book Debt: The First Five Thousand Years, largely to popularize Michael’s approach. The essential focus of the colloquium volumes is on how money, inter­est-bearing debt and land tenure were innovated in the palaces and temples of the ancient Near East, and on how the privatization of money and credit led to the polarization in ownership of land and other wealth in the hands of private oligarchies from classical antiquity to today’s Western economies.

As one of the few economists who predicted the 2008 crash, Michael published one of his most important theoretical papers in 2006: “Saving, Asset-Price Inflation, and Debt-Induced Deflation.”1

1. In L. Randall Wray and Matthew Forstater, eds., Money, Financial Instability and Stabi­lization Policy (Cheltenham: 2006), pp. 104-24.It accurately explained how the exponential expansion of credit created corresponding debt that would lead to the impending financial crash and its aftermath. On Septem­ber 8, 2009, Dirk Bezemer wrote an article “Why some economists could see it coming” in the Financial Times, which stated that “Michael Hudson of the University of Missouri wrote in 2006 that ‘debt deflation will shrink the ‘real’ economy, drive down real wages, and push our debt-ridden economy into Japan-style stagnation or worse.’ Importantly, these and other analysts not only foresaw and timed the end of the credit boom, but also perceived this would inevitably produce recession in the US.” That article included the set of charts that helped make Michael famous for his explanation of why financial crises are endemic and lead to secular stagnation:

Today, with the world in deep financial crisis, Michael has reiterated his proposition that unpayable or odious debts should be cancelled, and indeed must be cancelled in order to avoid a global austerity crisis and economic polarization stemming from chronic debt deflation. One point of clarifica­tion here. The United States has become the world’s biggest debtor, mainly as a byproduct of the fact that most international debts are denominated in dollars. This poses a basic question: Which debts should be wiped out?

Michael urges that the debts of overindebted households and impover­ished countries in the Global South should be written down, but that one debt should not be cancelled: the official foreign debt of the U.S. Govern­ment. The United States has run up this official foreign debt—like its do­mestic Treasury debt—without expecting ever to actually pay it off. It has no intention of imposing on itself the austerity that it and the IMF demand of other debtor countries. This asymmetry, along with the U.S. sponsorship of today’s New Cold War, has led leading dollar-holding nations such as China and Russia to begin de-dollarizing their economies. This signals the fracturing of the world economy that Michael predicted in his 1977 Global Fracture. The United States is forcing other countries to choose between accepting a dollarized and militarized rentier austerity, or going their own way by creating mixed public/private growth-oriented economies.

For socialism

For us on the Global U team, it has been a great privilege and honor to be learning from Michael, face to face. He was invited to give lectures in Hong Kong and Macau in November 2019, during which he had a dialogue with Wen Tiejun on economic and financial issues in China. During the Seventh and Eighth South-South Forums on Sustainability in 2020 and 2021, he had further discussions with Wen Tiejun. Michael has a particular concern for China’s development, as he feels that China is the leading exception to the U.S.-based neoliberal economic model, not taking the destructive ad­vice of the IMF and World Bank. He has argued that China’s economy can be resilient if it organizes its real estate, debt and tax system to avoid the rentier financialization process that is destroying the West.

In September 2020, while we were chatting online, I sounded the idea that Michael give a lecture series for Global U. Michael accepted on the spot. I emailed him a proposal of 10 topics, and within five hours he came back with a detailed outline. The lectures were delivered weekly in Septem­ber-December 2020. Rewriting these lectures to create the current book took another few months.

I sometimes wonder whether Michael would have had second thoughts if he had known that his spontaneous acceptance of my request would take ten months of his time. But fortunately for readers, this became a blessed opportunity to access his central ideas and be guided to his dozen books. The videoed lectures, subtitled in Chinese and divided into 70 episodes, were screened in April-August 2021 in China. The first episode has been watched by over 188,000 viewers, with 30,000 viewers on average for the remaining episodes. The English-subtitled lectures are available on www.michael-hudson.com. What readers now hold in their hand, the book writ­ten on the basis of these lectures, presents Michael’s dissection of the burn­ing global issues of today, and his explanation of how the industrial capi­talism analyzed in the 19th century by Marx and other classical economists has turned into finance capitalism based on debt and rent extraction. This financialized system is polarizing the Western economies and threatening their collapse in a wave of foreclosures and new privatizations by a finan­cial oligarchy.

Most important are Michael’s proposed alternatives for de-dollarization and de-privatization to avoid global debt deflation and New Cold War im­perialism. Indeed, if civilization is to avoid the destiny of destruction, if humanity is to have a future, socialism is the only way—and that is what Michael has passionately argued in this book.

Lau Kin Chi

Director, Executive Team, Global University for Sustainability Coordina­tor, Programme on Cultures of Sustainability, Centre for Cultural

The Bubble and Beyond – fictitious capital, debt deflation and global crisis Michael Hudson (2012)

Payback – debt and the shadow side of wealth Margaret Atwood (2008)

Sunday, January 25, 2026

JUST A TYPICAL DAY

I wanted to share the reading I do each day – before 3.30pm. So let me tell you 

that this Sunday these are the (various blogposter links eg this here) – a strange 
mix of right-wing tracts and left-wing writing
(2024)
(2025) reviewed here
(2020)
Henry Farrell and Abe Newman (2023)

Friday, October 31, 2025

In Praise of Bibliographical Essays

Last April I posted on this theme

Readers are aware of the rather eccentric stress this blog puts on the importance of 
books having annotated bibliographies. Last year Penguin published 
Why Politics Fails – the 5 traps of the  modern world and how to escape them  
Ben Ansell (2023) which ends with a rare essay which covers, for each chapter, the key 
books the author has found essential as themes for the lens through which he examines 
democracy, equality, solidarity, security and prosperity. 

The only other book I’ve come across with such an essay is Peter Gay’s 680 page 
magnum opus Modernism – the lure of heresy  (2007) which has a stunning 32 page  
bibliographical essay which, he warned, was “highly selective”! 
Peter Gay was born in Germany in 1923 but his family came to the States via Havana 
in 1941 where he became a prolific US historian – as is evident from this Wikipedia entry.
One of his books is My German Question: Growing Up in Nazi Berlin (1998), a powerful 
and insightful account of his teenage years in Berlin. 
Another which also has an extensive bib essay is Freud – a Life for our Times (1988) 
whose bib essay extends to 76 pages. The book does, after all, have 1350 pages! 
For me, such bibliographical essays are rare gems which offer an opportunity to understand 
an author’s preferences.

Yesterday I came across another book with a great bibliographical essay - 
Christopher Lasch’s The True and Only Heaven published in 1991. It’s essay is only 50 
pages long!

Monday, October 27, 2025

The Humanitarian Impulse is alive and well – exemplified in Mondragon

I haven’t posted enough about Mondragon and the shining example it offers about the potential of workers’ cooperativesA young American, Ellie Griffin, from Utah state recently published The Elysian Manifesto

Once we wrote constitutions and built governments, the work was done and our future became fixed. The pamphlets stopped. The illuminated ideas ceased. We no longer amend our constitution or reinvent our governments. You wouldn’t see something like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers published today—something that would “decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice.” Instead, we cover all of the ways our systems are failing without imagining what better ones could be.

Journalism is no longer about thinking up solutions, it’s about reporting on the problems. Even our fiction is dystopian. Our science fiction writers can only imagine a future plagued by AI apocalypse, government surveillance, computer chips in our brains, and space colonies that take us away from the polluted world we created. If even our best literary minds cannot imagine a better future, how are we supposed to create it?

That’s why I’ve created the Elysian League—a utopian garden where we can study philosophy and debate politics and rethink capitalism and enjoy contemplative leisure and be part of a new Enlightenment. It’s a place where we can think through a more beautiful future through essays and literature and discourse. And I’m just optimistic enough to believe that’s enough of a start to building one. The Elysian League is the Enlightenment social club made modern, and this Manifesto is my entry into the utopian canon

Her blog is a celebration of Mondragon with such posts as

For readers wanting to know more about cooperatives I strongly recommend

socialism and the transition roward it Geert Reuten (2023)
The Routledge Handbook of Cooperative Economics and Management ed JN Warren et al 
(2025)

Monday, October 6, 2025

About the blog

This blog has been running since I began to contemplate “hanging up my boots” after a career which had started in the late 1960s in “planning” work, moved on to economics and public administration and finished as a “consultant” in ex-communist countries in something called “institutional development”. You might think that after 16 years this blog has said most of what there is to say – but I keep coming across books which throw new light on things. Most blogs have a specialist focus, be it economic, political, sociological or cultural and apply that lens to the latest fashion of the day. This blog celebrates instead the butterfly approach and depends very much on what catches my fancy – generally a book or article, sometimes an incident, painting or piece of music. And I do like to offer excerpts from the books and articles I feel positive about – as distinct from offering opinions. It’s time, however, to do one of my periodic stock-takings of the blog. When it started (in 2009) it set out three aims -    

  • This blog will try to make sense of the organisational endeavours I've been involved in; to see if there are any lessons which can be passed on; to restore a bit of institutional memory and social history (let alone hope).
    • I read a lot and want to pass on the results of this to those who have neither the 
  • time nor inclination to read widely.
    • A final motive for the blog is What have we done with our life? What is important to us?”

The first two objectives are still important. After 12 years, it’s fairly obvious from the unfinished nature of my books on administrative reform (“Change for the Better?”) and on social change (“What is to be Done?”) that there’s still work to be done – although I often feel I’m just going round in circles. And I’m still finding fascinating books and continue to have this urge to share relevant insights with posterity. But I should probably stop imposing these rather forbidding reading lists.

But the blog has been weak on the third purpose. Indeed one friend has queried the absence of the personal touch – feeling that the tone is too clinical and aseptic. And it’s certainly fair comment that the blog is a bit “scholastic”. A couple of other friends have indeed called me a “scholar” – which I used to take as a compliment. Perhaps they meant bloodless!?

As I move through my “autumn days” and feel the approach of winter, the “settling of final accounts” (in the spiritual sense) should, certainly, loom larger. Charles Handy is a real inspiration here – someone constantly challenging himself and making fresh choices every decade or so about where to put the energies and skills he’s been endowed with  

One of my favourite fellow-bloggers is Canadian Dave Pollard who is constantly offering valuable insights from his life experience – he is a few years younger than me. A lot of this touches on inter-personal relations – one of my weak areasIn that spirit let me apply the Johari Window


strong Known to me weak

Strong






Known to others



Weak


Open

The Arena”


Blind

The “blind corner”


Hidden

The Façade”


Unknown

Our public self is something we try to control – but rarely succeed in. People notice things about us which we ourselves are not necessarily aware of (our blind corners). Friends should be helpful here – but we often resent critical comment and they soon learn to shut up

From 1990 I’ve had a nomadic life – living in some ten different countries – generally leader of teams in which I would make a few new friends. Both the contexts and my particular role were very different from those in which I had spent the previous 20 years.

But I was very aware of this – even so, it took me almost a decade before I was fully up to speed and confident that my skills were producing results. Those skills were broadly the same mix of political and scholastic I had used in my previous life - but the context was so very different. And my new skill was being sensitive to that and making the appropriate adjustments to the tools I used. 

As a Team Leader, I had, of course, to be sensitive to the strengths and weaknesses of the members of the team – but it’s almost impossible to shake off one’s cultural assumptions and I carried the baggage then of a Brit still proud of what our democratic tradition had given the world (!!!). In the past decade, in Bulgaria and Romania, I've deepened my understanding of cultural contexts - and am still learning..... 

I write in English – but literally a handful of Brits read the blog. Americans are its biggest fans making up 30% of readers (for which I’m so deeply grateful) - with Russians, curiously, coming in next at 15% and no other country having more than 5%. But the scale of non-English readership is an argument for keeping the posts short

Because I have the time to read widely; live on Europe’s edge; and have been out of my home country for more than 30 years, I have perhaps developed a bit of the outsider’s perspective….But I remain painfully aware of my shortcomings in the inter-personal field - I learned so much when I first did the Belbin test.... 

Charles Handy's Inside Organisations - 21 ideas for managers includes the Johari window as one of the ideas. It's a delightful and easy read which I strongly recommend

What I am really trying to say is that I have to recognise that I have always been a bit “distant” in my relations with others. Indeed, as a young politician who was quickly given responsibilities, I was seen as a bit arrogant – when that was the last thing I actually felt. It was rather a defence mechanism. Ernest Schumacher (author of "Small is Beautiful") put our usual approach into superb perspective in 1973 when he wrote -

"There are four sorts of worthwhile learning

· learning about things
- learning about oneself
· learning how others see us
· learning how we see others
"

I was slow to learn about myself – let alone the other dimensions. Despite undergoing some sessions of psychotherapy in the late 1980s, I was too much of a “word merchant” to allow mere words to get inside my brain and challenge my being.

It’s only recently I’ve been willing to be open about that experience all of 30 plus years ago which, at the time, it wasn’t possible to discuss. Philip Toynbee was one of the rare people who had actually written about it – I learned later that Winston Churchill used the euphemism of “black dog” to refer to his episodes. And about the only popular book about the subject was Dorothy Rowe’s Depression – a way out of your prison (1983). How times have changed – with credit being due to characters such as Stephen Fry and Alasdair Campbell who were amongst the first to go public and to encourage others to be open about a condition which touches most of us at some time in our lives.

One of my favourite books is Robin Skynner and John Clease’s Life – and how to survive it (1993) A therapist and leading British comic have a Socratic dialogue about the initial stages of everyone’s development – as babies weaning ourselves from our mothers, learning about the wider environment and coping with our feelings. The understanding the principles of healthy (family) relationships and then use these to explore the preconditions for healthy organisations and societies: and for leadership viz -
-
valuing and respecting others
- ability to communicate
- willingness to wield authority firmly but always for the general welfare and with as much consultation as possible while handing power back when the crisis is over)
- capacity to face reality squarely
- flexibility and willingness to change
- belief in values above and beyond the personal or considerations of party.

It took a massive change of role and circumstances before I came across an early edition of “A Manager’s Guide to Self-Development” by Mike Pedler et al which made me aware of a range of self-evaluation tools such as the Belbin Test of team roles which you can try out on yourself here. When I did it for the first time with my team of the moment, it was quite a revelation. I had assumed that I was a “leader”. What I discovered was that I was a “resource person” ie good at networking and sharing information – which was exactly right.

Harrison and Bramson’s The Art of Thinking (1982) was also a revelation for me - indicating that people have very different ways of approaching problems and that we will operate better in teams if we (a) understand what our own style is and (b) that others think in different ways. The authors suggest we have 5 styles – “synthetist”, “pragmatist”, “idealist”, “realist” and “analyst” and, of course, combinations thereof. I regret now that I came late to an understanding of the interpersonal - the question I now have is how people can avoid my fate. Is it enough that there are so many books around for people to stumble on? Or should it now be an integral part of undergraduate work? Perhaps it is?

Dave Pollard is one of the few bloggers whose posts I generally read in full – always thoughtful, generally provocative. This post is typical - professing lack of interest in what people had to say about themselves in CVs or expressions of future hopes – but preferring rather to suggest……

six “leading questions” that might evoke some kind of useful sense of who someone is and what they care about - and possibly assess whether the person you’re talking with might be the potential brilliant colleague, life partner, inspiring mentor or new best friend you’ve been looking for. These are the questions:

  1. 
    	
    1. What adjectives or nouns would you use to describe yourself that differentiate you 
  • from most other people? When and how did these words come to apply to you?
    1. Describe the most fulfilling day you can imagine, some day that might realistically
    • occur in the next year. Why would it be fulfilling? What are you doing now that might 
    • increase its likelihood of happening?
    1. What do you care about, big picture, right now? What would you mourn if it disappeared?
    • What do you ache to have in your life? What would you work really long and hard to 
    • conserve or achieve? How did you come to care about this?
    1. What is your purpose, right now? Not your role or occupation, but the thing you’re 
    • uniquely gifted and inspired to be doing, something the world needs. What would elate you if you achieved it, today, this month, in the next year? What would devastate you if you failed, or didn’t get to try? How did this become your purpose?
    1. What’s your basic belief about why you, and other humans, exist? Not what you believe 
    • is right or important (or what you, or humans ‘should’ do or be), but why 
    • you think we are the way we are now, and why you think we evolved to be where we are. 
    • It’s an existential question, not a moral one. How did you come to this belief?
    1. What’s your basic sense of what the next century holds for our planet and our 
    • civilization? How do you imagine yourself coping with it? How did you come to this belief?

  • These are not easy questions, and asking them might prove intimidating or even threatening to some people, which is why in the last post I suggested volunteering your own answer to each question yourself first, in a form such as “Someone asked me the other day… and I told them…”. It’s also why there are supplementary questions to each, to get the person you’re asking started. And the last supplementary question in each group lends itself to telling a story, since that’s what we’re most comfortable with. Even then, some of these questions will stop many people cold, which might tell you something about them right there.