Ideologies at War

Discourse:  Formal and orderly
 and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.

Merriam-Webster

I finally figured out why there’s no discourse in economics. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

I started researching and writing about economics and the workplace three years ago. Right away, I noticed the topic was as polarized as everything else these days. I confess, I was surprised — I was a newbie, idealistic about my new course of study. I figured everybody would want to talk about it. But the pros? No. They talked past each other, nobody convincing anybody of anything they didn’t already believe.

And now I know why.

At first, I thought the divisions — right vs. left, capitalism vs. socialism, conservative vs. progressive, free market vs. Keynesian intervention, etc.  — were the result of opinions logically and studiously debated. Three years later, I can see it’s not so — those opposing positions are rationalizations after the fact, justifying prior beliefs grounded in ideology. When a topic — any topic — is dominated by competing ideologies, a fundamentalist dynamic takes over. Fundamentalism has no place for “formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought.” Instead, it stifles discussion, damns doubt, brutalizes dissent. If you’re not with us, you’re against us — so choose sides, and the other side can talk to the hand.

We’ve seen, for example, how the Mont Pelerin Society and the Chicago School of Economics pursued their capitalist free market beliefs with fundamentalist zeal, and how the Democratic Socialists of America party has responded in kind. This, and other similar ideological standoffs have banished discourse from the field of economics.

The Berlin Wall fell because Soviet communism failed as a fundamentalist belief, leaving American capitalism the winner of the Cold War. Since then, political leadership in the U.S. and the U.K. has supercharged capitalism into its current hyper- competitive, hyper-privatized form, to the point that free market ideology has become not just economic policy but a cultural norm, and supporting it has become a patriotic duty.

Now in its fourth decade, the post-Cold War model of capitalism has failed in the same way Soviet communism failed before it:  it has neglected and alienated the “Public” — the res publica, the things that belong to the people, the things that assure citizens the basics of life and health, satisfying work, opportunity for educational, social, and economic betterment, and the sense of meaning, purpose, and well-being those things engender.

Fundamentalist ideologies wage war, and win at all costs. When free market economics became a fundamentalist ideology, it went to war. One of my daughters recently gave me a book published in 2007, at the height (depth?) of the Great Recession. The copyright date made me inclined to dismiss it as outdated. Now, as I read it, I wonder, how it is that we never knew these things, and most of us still don’t? This is from the book blurb:

“In this groundbreaking alternative history of the most dominant ideology of our time, Milton Friedman’s free-market economic revolution, Naomi Klein challenges the popular myth of this movement’s peaceful global victory. From Chile in 1973 to Iraq today, Klein shows how Friedman and his followers have repeatedly harnessed terrible shocks and violence to implement their radical policies.”

The Shock Doctrine:  The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein (2007)

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges wrote about the cultural dynamics of war in War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2014). As you read the following, substitute your ideology of choice — political, economic, religious, etc. — in place of war as armed conflict:

“War, in times of malaise and desperation, is a potent distraction.

“The cultivation of victimhood is essential fodder for any conflict. It is studiously crafted by the state. All cultural life is directed to broadcast the injustices carried out against us.

“The goal of such nationalistic rhetoric is to invoke pity for one’s own. The goal is to show the community that what they hold sacred is under threat. The enemy, we are told, seeks to destroy religious and cultural life, the very identity of the group or state.

“Patriotism, often a thinly veiled form of collective self-worship, celebrates our goodness, our ideals, our mercy and bemoans the perfidiousness of those who hate us.

“War makes the world understandable, a black and white tableau of them and us. It suspends thought, especially self-critical thought.

“Most of us willingly accept war as long as we can fold it into a belief system that paints the ensuring suffering as necessary for a higher good, for human beings seeks not only happiness but also meaning. And tragically war is sometimes the most powerful way in human society to achieve meaning.

“Before conflicts begin, the first people silenced — often with violence — are [those who] question the state’s lust and need for war. These dissidents are the most dangerous. Such voices are rarely heeded.

“Once we sign on for war’s crusade, once we see ourselves on the side of the angels, once we embrace a theological or ideological belief system that defines itself as the embodiment of goodness and light, it is only a matter of how we will carry out murder.”

Thus the Public has been “murdered” by economic policy as carried out under the current model of capitalism.

When the Public dies, so does public discourse.

It takes moral strength to dissent. The Business Roundtable recently took a step in that direction. According to its website, “Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of America’s leading companies working to promote a thriving U.S. economy and expanded opportunity for all Americans through sound public policy.”

We’ll look at what the CEOs have to say next time.

The Public Good [2]

drinking water

Photo by Kobu Agency on Unsplash

American schoolkids learn that their country has a republican form of government, which means everybody doesn’t get to vote on everything; we vote for people who do the voting for us.[1] But there’s more to the word republic than that:

republic (n.):  c. 1600, “state in which supreme power rests in the people via elected representatives,” from Middle French république (15c.), from Latin respublica (ablative republica) “the common weal, a commonwealth, state, republic,” literally res publica “public interest, the state,” from res “affair, matter, thing” (see re) + publica, fem. of publicus “public” (see public (adj.)). Republic of letters attested from 1702.

Etymology Online.

Publica (the people, the state) + Res (affair, matter, thing) = “the people’s stuff.” The republican state holds the people’s stuff in trust, and its elected representatives, as trustees, administer it for the public benefit. That’s the plan, anyway. A more elegant term for “the public’s stuff” is “commonwealth”:

commonwealth (n.):  mid-15c., commoun welthe, “a community, whole body of people in a state,” from common (adj.) + wealth (n.). Specifically “state with a republican or democratic form of government” from 1610s. From 1550s as “any body of persons united by some common interest.” Applied specifically to the government of England in the period 1649-1660, and later to self-governing former colonies under the British crown (1917). In the U.S., it forms a part of the official name of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico but has no special significance.

Etymology Online

Several online searches turned up a surprisingly long and illuminating list of things that are or used to be considered part of the common wealth trust portfolio. For example:

  • education
  • news
  • law
  • governmental administrative functions
  • healthcare
  • childcare
  • clean water
  • clean air
  • certain interior spaces
  • certain exterior spaces — e.g. parks
  • natural wonders
  • shoreline and beaches
  • mail and home/rural delivery service
  • trash removal
  • public toilets
  • sewage processing
  • food, clothing, and shelter
  • heat and lights
  • streets, roads, highways
  • public transportation
  • freight shipping
  • telephone and telegraph
  • pest control
  • use of public lands/wilderness access
  • the “right to roam”
  • the “right to glean” unharvested crops
  • the right to use fallen timber for firewood
  • defense
  • police and fire
  • handicapped access

Some people argue for the inclusion of additional, more contemporary items on the list:

  • information
  • internet access
  • net neutrality
  • open source software
  • email
  • fax
  • computers
  • cell phones
  • the “creative commons”
  • racial, gender, national, and other forms of equality
  • birth control
  • environmental protection
  • response to climate change

The res publica is made up of those goods, services, and places everybody is entitled to just by being human, or by being a citizen or member of the applicable socio-cultural institution. Somebody’s got to administer all that, and somebody’s got to pay for it. Plus, as we saw last time, there are competing private interests as well.

You’ve heard of technological singularity — the point at which technology overtakes human ability — e.g., artificial intelligence and machine learning. Nowadays, administration of both private interests and the commonwealth has been delegated to a near-universal economic singularity:  the “free” market, carried out in the form of American-style capitalism, as also exported to the rest of the world. Superstar Italian-American economist Mariana Mazzucato[2] thinks this practice has skewed the private/public balance to the point where the commonwealth has been eliminated from policy-making:

“[Government is] an actor that has done more than it has been given credit for, and whose ability to produce value has been seriously underestimated – and this has in effect enabled others to have a stronger claim on their wealth creation role. But it is hard to make the pitch for government when the term ‘public value’ doesn’t even currently exist in economics. It is assumed that value is created in the private sector; at best, the public ‘enable’ [that privately created] value.

“There is of course the important concept of ‘public goods’ in economics — goods whose production benefits everyone, and which hence require public provision since they are under-produced by the private sector.

“… the story goes [that] government should simply focus on creating the conditions that allow businesses to invest and on maintaining the fundamentals for a prosperous economy:  the protection of private property, investments in infrastructure, the rule of law, an efficient patenting system. After that, it must get out of the way. Know its place. Not interfere too much. Not regulate too much. Importantly, we are told, government does not ‘create value’; it simply ‘facilitates’ its creation and — if allowed — redistributes value through taxation. Such ideas are carefully crafted, eloquently expressed and persuasive. This has resulted in the view that pervades society today:  government is a drain on the energy of the market, and ever-present threat to the dynamism of the private sector.”

The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Rev. 2018) See also The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (2018)

Prof. Mazzucato isn’t the only one concerned about this. When Occupy Wall Street puts up its “We are the 99%” sign, when voters support populist politicians[3], when French farmers don yellow vests and riot in Paris, when Malala Yousafzai advocates for educational opportunity, when Greta Thunberg scolds world leaders on climate change… all these are advancing their own responses to the current public/private balance.

In the search for remedies, the younger generation is more likely than their elders to reject populist nationalist politics and private capitalist solutions, and to push instead for an expanded commonwealth administered under a new version of an economic system many of their elders consider an economic dirty word.

More on that next time.

[1] Pure democracy — all those ballot initiatives — has joined republican lawmaking since California’s 1978 Proposition 13.

[2] The Times called her “the world’s scariest economist.”

[3] Here’s a list from the BBC of European nationalist politicians.