WORDS

“Capitalism”…I started, but the barman hopped out of a pipkin

“Capitalism”, he countered…”That’s a flat and frothless word

I’m a good Labour man, but if I mentioned capitalism

My clientele would chew off their own ears

And spit them down the barmaid’s publicised cleavage”

“All right” I obliged “Don’t call it capitalism

Let’s call it Mattiboko the Mighty

……..

The poem finishes…

This was my fearless statement

“The Horror World can only be changed by the destruction of

Mattiboko the Mighty,

The Massimataxis Incoporated Supplement

And Gumbo Jumbo the Homely Obblestrog Spectacular”

Audience Reaction was quite encouraging

Adrian Mitchell “Come on Everybody Poems” 1953-2008

That's as friendly a way as I can imagine for introducing the difficult subject of the  compatibility of capitalism and democracy which has become, in recent years, a focus of extensive discussion as the "balance" between capital and labour which characterised the postwar period gave way in the 1980s to a new brand of financial capitalism.  

Although Margaret Thatcher kept assering that capitalism was the only way – or, in her own words, “there is No Alternative”, a mantra which soon attracted the acronym TINA – we have, since the end of the Cold War, become familiar with the “Varieties of capitalism” literature. Eased into it by Michel Albert, with later work by the likes of Crouch, Hall and Soskice being much more academic and, often, impenetrable. 

By the turn of the millennium the message seemed to be that Capitalism takes various forms; is constantly changing; and will always be with us. But increasingly, people were wondering whether it was not out of control. Pages 57-66 of my Dispatches to the Next Generation plot the increasing dystoptic aspect of book titles. But a few years back, something changed. It wasn’t the global crisis in itself but rather the combination of two things –

• first the doubling of company profits (as spelled out in this post) and

• a sudden realisation that robotization was a serious threat to even middle-class jobs.

Now the titles talk of the new phenomenon of “post-capitalism” 

"Democracy is Bullshit" is both a stinging critique of the representative system and an argument for the importance of extending democracy into the workplace as recommended powerfully in Richard Wolf's Democracy at Work – a cure for capitalism published in 2012. Somehow, though, we never seem to get the message 

How do we know what we know?

Positivism is the view that all knowledge is derived by reason and logic from sensory experience. Other ways of knowing, such as theology or intuition are rejected. Of course, post-modernity has been with us for some time but the social sciences – and economics in particular – had been pretty resistant to its influence

But positivism seems to have slipped out of favour in recently-published books. I noticed it first in my own field with the publication in 2017 of Philosophy and Public Administration; an introduction by Edoardo Ongaro which deals with the question never raised in social science textbooks “how do we know what we think we know”?

If I had been paying more attention to what was happening in the management field, I would have noticed “Strategic Management and organisational dynamics” by Ralph Stacey and Chris Mowles first published as far back as 1993; Chris Mowles’ “Rethinking management” (2011) and “Management and Uncertainty” (2015); and “Rethinking Management – confronting the roots and consequences of current theory and practice” by N Douglas and T Wykovski (2017), Stacey and Mowles put it very well –

There are a number of different, contradictory ways of explaining how human beings come to know anything. Furthermore, there is no widespread agreement as to which of these explanations is ‘true’ or even most useful.

The realist position probably commands most support amongst natural scientists and those social scientists, probably the majority, who seek the same status for their field as is accorded to the natural sciences.

Social constructionists point to a significant difference between natural and social phenomena. Humans interpret natural phenomena, those phenomena do not interpret themselves. However, when it comes to human phenomena, we are dealing with ourselves, phenomena that are already interpreting themselves. Many constructionists hold, therefore, that while the traditional scientific approach might be applicable in the natural sciences it is not in the human sciences.

Pragmatists are keen to identify those aspects of scientific method, contestation for example, which are common to both natural and social sciences.

Both our understanding of reality, and the categories which we develop to understand it, evolve over time informed by our experience of living in the world and in debate and contestation over what we take that experience to mean.

Social constructionists and pragmatists hold that it is impossible to take the position of objective observer and that those who claim to do so are simply ignoring the impact of their own participation or lack of it.

We have to recognise that the approach we adopt is the product of who we are and how we think. This, in turn, is the distillation of our personal histories of relating to other people over many years in the particular communities we have lived and do live in which also have histories.

We can never claim to stand outside our own experience, outside the web of relationships that we are a part of, and take the role of objective observer. Instead, we have to take the role of inquiring participant (Reason, 1988). Furthermore, reflexivity is not simply an individual activity dependent on that individual person’s history alone. This is because we are always members of a community that has a history and traditions of thought. Reflexivity, therefore, involves being aware of the impact on how one thinks of both one’s personal history and the histor ons of thought of one’s community. It is for this reason that Chapters 3 and 12 (of Stacey and Mowles’ book) give brief accounts of the central traditions in Western thought. Just how human beings know anything, and whether the individual or the group is primary, are hotly contested issues with no clear truth

Approaches and methodologies in social science – a pluralist perspective D Della Porta and 

M Keating 2008

The last post was about texts I would recommend for those

• baffled by Economics

• who appreciate, however, that illiteracy about economic and financial matters in unacceptable

• who are prepared to invest some time in understanding the subject’s strengths AND weaknesses

I’ve been heartened by the growth of a more pluralist approach to the discipline in the new millennium – books such as

Economic Literacy – basic economics with an attitude Fred Weaver (2^nd ed 2007)

Rethinking Economics – and intro to pluralist economics ed L Fischer et al (2018)

Applied Economics – thinking beyond stage one Thomas Sewell (2019)

Economy Studies – a guide to rethinking economics eduation de Mujnck and Tielemann (2021)

A more traditional approach

Ten principles of Economics Gregor Mankiw 5^th ed a multi-millionnaire from his sale of the textbook; and an adviser to Republican Presidents.

Popularising Economics

Economics is known as "the dismal science" – but is most decidedly NOT a science! It has indeed become the new religion – worshipped by policy-makers throughout the world. I've learned to distrust the breed – but they have such a grip on our minds that the only way to counter their evil influence is by penetrating their myths viz by reading up on the nonsense most of them perpetrate.

So I've prepared two lists – the first, some good introductions to the subject. And the second some well-written and more polemical critiques of the discipline

Good Introductory Texts

- Almost Everyone’s Guide to Economics; JK Galbraith and N Salinger (1978) quite inspiring from one of the world's best writers and economists quizzed by a young French woman. I discovered it recently thanks to a great biography of the man by Stephen Dunn.

- Short Circuit – strengthening local economies in an unstable world” - Ronald Douthwaite (1996). Very practical – but also inspirational….almost 30 years on, it hasn’t really been bettered. Full text available at the link

- Debunking Economics – the naked emperor dethroned; Steve Keen (2001 and 2011) Written before the crash. it might be called the first alternative textbook (except it’s much greater fun to read!). Can be read in full.

- Economics for Everyone – a short guide to the economics of capitalism”; Jim Stanford (2006) is a very user-friendly book and has an excellent “further reading” list which was probably the best there was at that time….Once upon a time it was freely available on the internet but now I can find only excerpts…..

- The Economics Book – big ideas simply explained ed Kishtany, Meadway et al 2012 Superbly presented chronogically, with short chapters on every imaginable topic

- Economics – the user’s guide Ha-Joon Chang 2014 probably my favourite - not least because it understands our repugnance about the subject and offers a way of reading the book Also because it accepts that it is not a science; recognises that there are various (very different) perspectives on the subject; and explains each.  

- Credo – economic beliefs in a world of crisis; Brian Davey (2015) An alternative approach to economics which situates it in its cultural and historical context. It may be long (at 500 pages) but is definitely worth persevering with.…

- Economics for the Common Good; Jean Tirole (2017) A Nobel-prizewinner offers a highly readable text – written in short chunks

- Economics in two lessons; John Quiggin (2019) Quiggin is an Australian economist which means a non-nonsense approach

Less introductory – more polemical

- For the Common Good; Herman Daly and John Cobb (1989). The book which inspired a different approach to economics – written by a theologian (Cobb) and Herman Daley who for 6 years was the principal economist of the World Bank. But, by virtue of being a train blazer, not the easiest of reads

- Zombie Economics - how dead ideas still walk among us; by John Quiggin (2010) is a great read – with a self-explanatory title. He is an Australian author currently completing a book called Economics in Two Lessons…

- 23 Things they didn’t tell you about capitalism; Ha Joon-Chang (2010) superbly-written demolition job on the myths perpetrated on us by economists

- The Economics of Enough; Diane Coyle (2011)

- Austerity – the history of a dangerous ides; Mark Blyth (2013) written by a political scientist/political economist, it shows how old theories still affect the contemporary world profoundly

- Economics of the 1% - how mainstream economics serves the rich, obscures reality and distorts policy; John F Weeks (2014) More of a critique but a text which is a must-read. One of the best introductions to the subject - which can't be faulted for being over-diplomatic!

- Vampire Capitalism – fractured societies and alternative futures; Paul Kennedy (2017) Hardly an introductory text and more of a sociological treatment which earns high points by stating in the very first sentence that it has “stood on the shoulders of so many giants that he is dizzy” and then proves the point by having an extensive bibliography with lots of hyperlinks…

- Doughnut economics – 7 ways to think like a 21st century economist; Kate Raworth (2017). This Oxford economist has made quite an impact with this book

- Good Economics for Hard Times Banerjee and Duflo (2019) common sense from a Nobel-prize winning couple

- What's Wrong with economics – a primer for the perplexed; Robert Skidelsky (2020) Skidelsky is the biographer of Keynes and as much an historian as economist. This is less an introductory text and more a polemic

The Great Transformation

We’re assailed by articles and books which tell us that the world is changing dramatically because of such technology as driverless cars, keyhole surgery, contraception and social media.

But, in a sense, this has been our story for the last century and more – although Karl Polyani may have been the first (in 1944) to analyse this closely in his classic The Great Transformation which analysed the power aspects behind the transition from feudalism to a market economy.

Other writers periodically try to anticipate what they consider to be significant social change but none perhaps greater than Peter Drucker, an Austrian born in 1909, best known for his management writing – indeed the father of management. His initial education was in Vienna but he graduated in Frankfurst (in International and Public Law), practising journalism in Hamburg and London before migrating to the US where he became a US citizen in 1943.

I have a theory that people who experience different worlds (geographical and/or intellectual) are able somehow to see the world differently - and are more creative. The theory is described here. Drucker went on to use his experience of being the first person to research management in General Motors to write first The New Society – anatomy of the industrial order (1950) and then to anticipate Alvin Toffler’s “Future Shock” (1971) with The Age of Discontinuity – guidelines to our changing society (1968). In both cases he demonstrated amazing sociological insight – somehow sensing a change in the wind’s direction before it even happened. And he was probably the first person to use the phrase “post-capitalist” when he published (in 1993) Post Capitalist Society

Francis Fukuyama may have inherited his mantle when he published The Great Disruption (1999) – although Drucker lived a good age, dying in 2005. I’ve added him to the table you'll find in the 2020 post which I can't reproduce here because the blogpost people seem to have run out of editors and any table now overlaps into the right hand column! This post is best read in conjunction with A Short Note and annotated bibliography on CHANGE

Further Reading

https://asaduzaman.medium.com/summary-of-the-great-transformation-by-polanyi-c329541e8532

https://weapedagogy.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/resources-for-study-of-polanyis-great-transformation/

The Technology Trap C Frey 2019

Our Common Agenda

A few years ago, I argued that authors (and publishers) of non-fiction books needed some self-discipline; that their books’ messages could and should be contained in many fewer pages. More specifically the post suggested that we apply various tests to any book-

- does it have a solid Introduction – or Preface? This is the author’s chance to show (s)he understands how overwhelmed we are by the choices; to offer us a convincing argument about why (s)he has to inflict yet another book on us. And the best way to do that is to give a brief summary of what others have written and identify the missing elements which make a book necessary. I would like to see a summary of each chapter….. When I got hold recently of George Bernard Shaw’s The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism; (1928) it was to discover that his Table of Contents has no fewer than 33-pages...

- Does it have a (short) list of recommended reading? Ideally with notes explaining the choice. Most books have a long “bibliography” which is more of a “virility test” - demonstrating nothing more than (a barely compressed sense of) superiority. I want instead to see a shorter (and annotated) list for several reasons - partly to smoke out the author’s prejudices; partly to see how honest (s)he is; and partly to see how well (s)he writes

- Is it clearly written? – with suitable use of graphics and tables which are needed to break up and to illustrate the text….

And I also need to be persuaded that the book in question has two other features --

- respects the basic facts about an issue

- tries to be fair to the various sides of the key arguments on the issue

Publishers seem to have dispensed with editors these days and allow authors to inflict books on us which lack these features. Strange because everyone knows that social media breeds in us all a need for brevity

So credit where and when credit is due – the United Nations is one of the few bodies which seems to understand this. It recently published an important 86-page report “Our Common Agenda” which rehearses the issues faced by the world but accompanied the report with a 28 page “Easy Read” with visuals and tables AND an issue for the “visually impaired”

The Blogroll

One of the many reasons for reading this blog is the access it gives to other takes on the world – visual and textual (I’ve been thinking of adding a selection of podcasts). You can find these by scrolling down the right-hand column until you find “insights from other worlds”. I do keep this list updated and I’ve just added a new blog – called Aurelien – Trying to understand the world which comes from somone with my sort of background in government and academia but who has a much better grasp of geopolitics. His latest post is a diatribe against the “Professional and Managerial Class” (PMC) to whom I devoted a couple of posts earlier in the year. My feeling was that his post was a bit too self-indulgent – a bit of a rant – and needed a deeper analysis of both causes and options. But when I looked at some of his previous posts, it was to discover that he had, last year, provided just such a deeper analysis called Into the Waste-Land which included this section -

The risk now is that the political systems of many western states will begin to fall apart, and that nothing will replace them: anarchy in the popular sense of the term. It’s easy enough to see how this could happen. Public interest and trust in existing political systems is reducing all over the western world. In many countries, scarcely half the population bothers to vote, even in national elections. Parties still have differences between them, but these are often relatively minor, and do not correspond to the differences of opinion and interest within societies themselves. Although substantive issues of Left and Right are actually as salient as they ever were, the more important operational distinction in how people feel is between the minority (10-20% depending on the country) that benefits from the current neoliberal dispensation, or hopes to one day, and the rest, who do not benefit or fear no longer doing so.

There is no Excluded Party in any western country, although some parties, often labelled “extreme” of Left and Right do gather up protest votes. Moreover, in most political systems, the Excluded Party is split between several parties with superficially different orientations and objectives. So in France, much of the old Leftist vote has split in two ways: the middle-class has run off to the Greens, whilst the working class has gone to Le Pen’s National Assembly.

Yet in practice, it would be possible to take the working-class and lower-middle class vote among scattered parties of the Left, and the working-class vote now lost to the Right, and make a winning coalition from them.

The irony is that the Leaders of the Left cannot see this or, if they can, choose to do nothing because they find supporters of the Right common, uncouth and bigoted and have no wish to be associated with them.The further irony is that the views of the average RN voter and the views of the average Communist Party voter are actually not that far apart. It’s the leadership that is the problem.