The Road to Serfdom

When Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom in 1944 it was one of several books reacting against the collapse of liberal values in Europe and the continent's descent into fascism. Hayek's argument was that an over-powerful state repressed the individual and that a system of markets, operating freely, and companies in competition with each other would best guarantee individual liberty.The organisation of the Olympic Games is a clear illustration of the way in which it is the private, corporate economy that is turning us into serfs, rather than the overweaning state that Hayek feared.

Those who have bought the expensive tickets to the Olympic venues will be prevented from taking in their own food and drink. The corporate sponsors have bought exclusive rights to advertising, meaning that small businesses will be prevented from using the games to increase their sales. Today we hear that a whole range of words are to be expunged from our vocabulary, since they remain the preserve of corporate marketeers who wish to use them to ensure that the Olympics and all words associated with it, bring profits to only the exclusive companies that have paid for the privilege. We are to be deprived of our freedom of speech. The fuzziness between public and private sectors also erodes our rights as citizens. As a trivial example, how are those with Olympic tickets to know, whether they are being searched by police officers, solidiers, or private security guards? And how are they to know whether they are being searched for weapons or sandwiches?

Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation was also published in 1944, and like Hayek, Polanyi was a refugee from fascism who also studied and wrote in London. The current failures of democracy and erosion of individual rights have arisen as a result of policies designed in response to Hayek's vision. Polanyi would agree with Hayek about the dangers of an over-powerful, centralised state, but his target is the market system itself, which turns people into the 'ficitious commodity' of labour and ignores the primal value of the land itself. Hayek's vision of the market as a system of competing firms was always a theoretical fiction, since in reality consolidation leads to domination by corporations, against whom our primary defence must be the government.

The green vision of the economy accepts the need for individual liberty but balanced by our role as citizens and the political power operated on our behalf by democratic institutions. We would also emphasise the importance of scale. Whether public, or private, an institution that operates at national or international level will always be oppressive of the individual merely by virtue of its size, and therefore the power it can wield.

As the Olympic Games loom nearer, for the UK citizen it is hard to see what they offer. Our rights to choose what we buy, where we go, and even what we say have been sold to corporations that are becoming as threatening to individual liberty as the powerful states that inspired Hayek's wrath. Through Hayek and Thatcher our civil and political liberties have been sacrificed on the altar of free-market capitalism.

George Orwell produced a review of The Road to Serfdom on its publication that foresaw the more threatening tyranny of the unconstrained privatised economy:

'in the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of', but he was also able to see that 'a return to "free" competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state.'*

*Review of the Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, etc" As I Please, 1943-1945: The Collected Essays, Journalism & Letters, vol. 3, quoted on Wikipedia.
. Tweet

Back to the Land

I have been away from my blog for a while because of tidying up a typescript for my new book called The Bioregional Economy: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. As I've been writing it I have leaned more and more on Polanyi who, it seems to me, is the economist for our times.

Polanyi has an uncanny knack of being able to take a long historical perspective. This is rare amongst commentators and policy-makers, but particularly rare amongst economists. It is well known that the discipline of economics defined economic history as outside its purview some decades ago. Not knowing your own history means you cannot learn from your own mistakes, which is an important explanation for why we have found ourselves in the Great Depression II: Revenge of the Austericons.

Polanyi famously describes the 'great transformation' from a stable, sustainable economy, based on social relationships and connected to the land, to a capitalist market economy, where people are turned into the 'fictitious commodity' of labour and decisions are made by those who control capital, without any need to take account of their social consequences. One of the questions I raise in my book is how we might reverse this transformation and find our way back to the land and back to wholesome social relationships.

It appears that part of this transformation may already be happening as a result of the crisis of capital. On the Guardian economics Live Eurozone Blog (11.11am), Helena Smith reports that

'Greece is undergoing a mass internal migration as a result of the economic crisis that has engulfed the nation since December 2009. After years of being spurned for the bright lights of big cities, rural areas are making a comeback as unprecedented numbers of unemployed young Greeks move en masse to the countryside encouraged by government stipends to cultivate tracts of land that have been left untended for years. A survey conducted at the behest of the Agricultural Development Ministry by the polling firm Kapa Research found that more than 1.5 million Greeks were considering relocating to rural areas with one in five already having made the move. Around 75 % were under the age of 44 – the group worst hit by joblessness in a nation where more are now out of work than employed.'

The state has launched a €60bn programme of subsidies on plots of land, a scheme which is attracting graduates who have despaired of finding white-collar jobs in the cities. In Thessaloniki trained agronomists have put their knowledge into practice and are renting land from the university to grow rice and cotton. You can find a short video of their experiences on Youtube.

This leads me to question how much these experiences might be shared in the UK, if our Depression continues. Greece has only been a member of the EU for 40 years and was previously an agricultural society, so the link to the land is still strong. In the UK for many the experience of living from the land was lost 100 years ago or more.
. Tweet

Bringing Economics Down to Earth

I have been a bit lax about posting recently because I am watching a publisher's deadline rush towards me over the horizon. The book is to be called The Bioregional Economy: Land, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is all about bringing the economy down to earth and so I'm very pleased to share with you a presentation Mary Mellor gave recently at Schumacher College.

She focused on the distortions within standard economic theory, criticising the unreal nature of neoclassical theory, and explaining why it has resulted in a global economy that is so disembedded, a really useful concept that she uses along with other feminist economists to explain the way finance has come to dominate the real economy. This has parallels with Polanyi's writing about the 'great transformation' from earthbound to market-based economies.

Mary describes the 'destructive transcendence' which uses expropriation and profit to drive a growth-based economy that ignores human needs and devastates the planet. She also describes the nature of money creation and circulation. The whole presentation is a classic view of a gaian approach to economics and I'm proud to link to it from this blog.
. Tweet

Community Currencies Invade Dark Towers of Davos

The global elite, the men we have come to know as the 1%, will be assembling soon in Davos, Switzerland to discuss the global economy over which they have so much power. This year's conference is organising under the rubric 'The Great Transformation: Shaping New Models'. It the reference to Polayni intended or accidental? It certainly gives intellectual scope to those of us who who seek to unwind some of the worst consequences of the original transformation from an embedded to a capitalist economy.

One idea that they will encounter is certainly a challenge to the centralised finance that has been such an important driver of the economic crisis. John-Paul Flintoff has published an article about alternative currencies in the mainstream business magazine CNBC Business, which he assures me will be distributed in hard copy to all Davos delegates.

Is capitalism compatible with barter? I would suggest not, but if there is a way to extract an unfair share of value from others' work, the Davos delegates are certainly the people to find it.
. Tweet

The Eurozone Crisis: A Warning from History

I am thinking of creating my own derivative, called a political default swap. This is how it works. We each choose a country and bet against the length of survival of its government as it tries to introduce enough austerity measures to keep the markets happy. It works like a sort of insurance policy, where the riskier the country, in this case the less able its politicians are to bear down on its people and extort their work to pay bankers' debts, the higher the cost of betting on it.

The manoeuvres by EU finance ministers in Brussels today conceal as much as they reveal and demonstrate that power is balanced between politicians and financiers. This is seen most clearly in the negotiation over the extent to which those who made risky investments in Greek debt will lose their shirts (or their hair). The risk seems to be approaching 50:50.

Harder to agree is how the effects of this on Europe's banks will be accommodated. If the banks take the full hit, the financiers argue, they will become bankrupt, leading to Credit Crunch II: Return of Debtonator. So the bank welfare fund has to be massively increased. We have grown tired of billions, yawn the financiers, we need to move into the zone of trillions.

But where is this money to be found? The devastated citizens of Europe, their bodies already straining beyond breaking point to keep the capitalist wheels turning, can offer no more. Eyes turn to the European Central Bank - can it be asked to create money from thin air, the sort of money bankers like best - power without responsibility? The Germans, with their historical fear of inflation, will not accept this option. The most likely outcome is a solution dreamed up by the very 'quants' who created this disastrous situation: a solution that uses a combination of mathematics and conjuring to make the money disappear through time, emerging at some future date enormously swollen in value.

In his masterpiece The Great Transformation, written in 1944 and reflecting on the last great capitalist disaster, Karl Polanyi describes the contortions that Europe's politicians went through in the 1930s to save the Gold Standard. They seem eerily similar to what we are witnessing today. The system must be saved, no matter what the sacrifice in terms of human lives and political stability.

In the 1920s financiers inflated a bubble which burst in 1929, but through the 1930s the economists defended the position of laissez-faire capitalism whose social costs were unacceptable to the people of Europe. The result was political polarisation, economic chaos and the rise of fascism. This crisis has already provoked the collapse of the Slovakian government, the government of Iceland, and the government in Ireland, and the Italian government could soon follow. Somehow the political system is still holding in Greece, but the massive civil unrest leaves it vulnerable. So, will you take my offer of a punt? Which country's political system would you bet on surviving this financial turmoil intact?
. Tweet

A Reverse Transformation?

Polanyi's work is valuable in denying the priority placed on the market in most economic theory. His account of how we arrived at the situation where most of our needs are met by the market is worth consideration. Polanyi identifies three stages in the 'subjection of the surface of the planet to the needs of an industrial society. The first stage was the commericalization of the soil, mobilizing the feudal revenue of the land. The second was the forcing up of the production of food and organic raw materials to serve the needs of a rapidly growing industrial population on a national scale. The third was the extension of such a system of surplus production to overseas and colonial territories. With this last step land and its produce were finally fitted into the scheme of a self-regulating world market.' (p. 188)

Given that the market system needs to be re-evaluated in an era when our most pressing task as a human community is to ensure the sustainability of our society, we might raise questions about all three of these process of transition. It is taken for granted by most contemporary economists that land can operate like any other resource, that the process of the commodification of land—its bundling into parcels over which ownership rights can be asserted—and of its sale in a market is unproblematic, but recent developments towards land reform across the world, based in the indigenous view of land as having its own rights, argues against this.

Polanyi's second stage of the transition to a market economy he calls the 'forcing up' of production of food and organic raw materials' in response to the movement of the population from the land and its rapid expansion in the industrial cities. What he has in mind here, I think, is the loss of balance between people and their land, which is a nexus of interacting pressures and conflicts rather than a simple cause-and-effect process. This reopens the generally accepted view that economic growth increased population and then put pressure on resources.

While some environmentalists have traditionally taken what can be judged to be a neo-Malthusian stance on the population question, the more nuanced response to the debate is to recognise that the shift to the market broke the connection between people, their need for resources and the land they inhabited. In a peasant community, each new birth represents a mouth that needs feeding from a limited land resource; in contrast, in an economy where livelihoods are based around the labour-market, each birth represents a potential labourer whose time can be sold. Evidence of the extent of child labour in Victorian cities or in the megalopolises of the global South today is greeted with horror, and yet it is a rational response to an economic system where people have no right to land and need their children to guarantee their subsistence.

Polanyi's third point is linked to the second, since once the industrialised country's population were engaged in producing goods for trade rather than for their own subsistence, their basic needs for food and the raw materials to make clothing, had to be met from the work and land of others, and in the colonial era and subsequently this has meant through using the over-priced land and labour of countries of the global South. Extending Polanyi's insight into the present globalised economy we can see the system of the global trade system as a means of enabling the rich Western economies to rent land in the poorer countries, and exchange which cannot be fair while the former's currencies dominate the system of global trade.

Polanyi's central point is that the role of the market as the central and controlling mechanism in economic life is a modern and short-lived one: 'Though the institution of the market was fairly common since the later Stone Age, its role was no more than incidental to economic life.' (Polanyi, 1944: 45). To move towards a provisioning based economy we need to reverse the three stages Polanyi identifies as forming the transition to a market economy. In other words we need policies to:

Decommercialise the soil - perhaps a Land Value Tax is a first step here;
Return to sufficiency via the strengthening of self-reliant local economies;
Limits on global trade rather than hyper-globlisation.
. Tweet

Factors of Production and Fictitious Commodities

When economists address the issue of the production of goods they begin with the concept of ‘factors of production’: these can be thought of as akin to resources, but fundamental productive resources that are necessary to make anything that can later be sold in a market. This is important because, as Polanyi pointed out, labour is not labour until there is a labour-market. Before this momentous transformation people are people or citizens or even workers, but not labour.

Land also undergoes a transformation when it becomes available for sale in a market, although it does not undergo a change of name. What an economist means by land, however, is not what the layman means by land. As a factor production land includes everything that can usefully be extracted from land (including from deep beneath it) to become part of a productive process. Thus ‘the economic notion of resources is strictly anthropocentric. That is, the economic value of any resource is defined by human needs and nothing else’ (Hussen, p. 4). There is no space in this definition for land to have a spiritual or relational importance, what economists would call an ‘intrinsic value’, as it does for many indigenous people, who see the land as their mother.

Polanyi referred to land and labour as ‘fictitious commodities’. Real commodities are ‘objects produced for sale on the market’. Land, by contrast, ‘is only another name for nature, which is not produced by man’ while labour ‘is only another name for a human activity’. To refer to these basic economic elements as equivalent to goods that were produced specifically to be sold he considered to be a fiction.

The third conventional ‘factor of production’, capital, confronts us with even greater definitional problems. Within a market system, some additional force is required to harness the two fundamental factors into useful production: this factor is capital. In everyday discourse, capital might be considered as akin to money, but again it has a different meaning for economists:

‘Capital refers to a class of resources that is produced for the purpose of creating a more efficient production process. In other words, it is the stock of produced items available not for direct consumption, but for further production purposes. Examples include machines, buildings, computers and education (acquired skill).’ (Hussen p. 4)

This is a somewhat confused definition combining intermediate goods and plant with human capacities. Shann Turnbull has suggested that instead we use the phrase ‘procreative assets’ for this type of capital. But any definition along these lines excludes the consideration of money and the power money conveys to acquire productive resources and to encourage people to work to transform them into products.

For Polanyi money was the third basic element of economic production: he addressed the issue of money directly and considered it ‘merely a token of purchasing power which, as a rule, is not produced at all, but comes into being through the mechanism of banking or state finance’. Land and labour are both fictitious commodities in the sense that they are not produced directly for sale, but money is surely an even more fictitious commodity since it is called into being to enable exchange and is maintained by credibility. It therefore has the strongest claim to be a fiction.

Hussen, A. M. (2000), Principles of Environmental Economics: Ecology, Economics and Public Policy (London: Routledge).
. Tweet

Work, Land and Provisioning

When systems of industrial production burst onto the British landscape in the 18th century they represented a break with a timeless pattern of social and economic life: it is this fundamental change in the relationship between people, their land and their systems of provisioning that has led to this process being termed a 'revolution'. In the 250 years since the advent of industrialism this system has spread geographically and across the productive sectors. It has brought extraordinary technological innovation paralleled by unimaginable improvements in lifestyle and longevity. While the yields of this system have been apparent and immediate, the costs have been more diffuse and have taken longer to express themselves.

In the book I am writing about the Bioregional Economy I am considering how the relationships between employer and employed, and between labourers and the resources they work with, changed as agricultural production gave way to industrial production. The complex social networks that typified production in rural communities that had changed little since feudal times were replaced by market exchanges.

In redefining an economy compatible with sustainability we need to reconsider the creation and distribution of goods and services within a market system but taking the achievement of sustainability to be the most important guiding principle. However, it is important to question whether this market system is the most conducive to achieving sustainability, or perhaps at all compatible with a sustainable future.

The achievement of an equal and sustainable society raises questions relating to 'provisioning', and economy that enables people to meet their needs directly, without feeling constrained by the strait-jacket of the market ideology. This may be considered to be a utopian project, but I would rather concur with Polanyi in his suggestion that it is in fact the ideology of the free marketeer that is utopian, in fact not merely utopian but dangerously so:

'the origins of the cataclysm [the Second World War] lay in the utopian endeavor of economic liberalism to set up a self-regulating market system. Such a thesis seems to invest that system with almost mythical faculties; it implies no less than that the balance of power, the gold standard, and the liberal state, these fundamentals of the civilization of the nineteenth century were, in the last resort, shaped in one common matrix, the self-regulating market.' (Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 31)

While the precise forms of the institutions has changed since Polanyi wrote his masterpiece in 1944, his central point remains: that they all collaborated in the underpinning of a unified system with the market economy at its heart. Like Polanyi, I would challenge this totalitarian approach to economic life.
. Tweet

Resist Divide-and-Conquer Tactics

The Tory rhetoric over today's strike is a clear attempt to divide and conquer. We are told that the poor downtrodden taxpayer is subsidising the fat cats of the public sector, and that private-sector pension schemes are poor and the public-sector schemes should be as poor. No attempt is made to argue that private companies should provide properly for their employees' retirement. We are to be set against each other, workers in private or public sector, taxpayers and public sectors workers, when it is quite apparent that most of us fall into more than one of these categories at once.

I am proud to be striking today. I am proud to be defending the right of myself and my colleagues to contribute a reasonable amount to dignity in old age, should we be lucky enough to get there. I was pleased to receive the instruction to strike from my rep., together with the helpful information that 'UCU believes the proposals are not only unfair, but totally unnecessary. The TPS was renegotiated in 2007 to make it affordable and sustainable over time. There is no crisis or deficit in the scheme. This is nothing more than an ideologically motivated attack by a government that wants us to pay for an economic crisis we did not create.'

The changes to pension contributions, which represents an increase of some 50% or about £150 per month, are actually a tax specifically on the public sector, the government's target of choice, to extract money to pay for the deficit caused by the banking crisis. Since our future pensions will be politically controlled there is no limit on the number of times the government can come back to us for more money, or how many times they can reduce our consitions, our pay, or our future pensions. No limit, that is, except our unified political resistance.

In The Great Transformation Karl Polanyi gives an interesting new perspective on the strike. If labour is to be distributed in a market, he argues, then the seller, i.e. the worker, has a perfect right not to sell until his price is reached. It is the absurdity of considering labour a commodity like any other that causes the strike to appear anomalous. Here is his lucid prose from p. 239:

'Actually, strikes in vital services and public utilities held the citizens to ransom while involving them in the libyrinthine problem of the true functions of a labor market. Labor is supposed to find its price on the market, and other price than that so established being uneconomical. As long as labor lives up to this responsibility, it will behave as an element in the supply of that which it is, the commodity "labor", and will refuse to sell below the price which the buyer can still afford to pay.

Consistently followed up, this means that the chief obligation of labor is to be almost continually on strike. . . The source of the incongruity of the theory and practice is, of course, that labor is not really a commodity, and that if labor was withheld merely in order to ascertain its exact price society would very soon dissolve for lack of sustenance. It is remarkable that this consideration is very rarely, if ever, mentioned in the discussion of the strike issue on the part of liberal economists.'
. Tweet

Great Transformation: Phase II

I have finally overcome my inherent thrift and bought Karl Polanyi's Great Transformation, allowing me the leisure time to consider his arguments at length during train journeys, rather than in haste before his book had to be returned to the British Library stacks in Wetherby. What I found surprised and impressed me immensely.

At the level of chat, Polanyi is discussed, dismissed even, as an 'economic historian'. This is a familiar glitch in discussion of economics, where considering long-term trends is thought to undermine the quality of your contribution. After all, it might risk allowing in the possibility that there have been alternatives to the market, even that these have dominated human history and achieved high levels of well-being.

The popular view of Polanyi is of a social historian who offered an understanding of non-market provisioning systems. The motivation for his book, however, is clearly that of political economy. He begins with two chapters on the gold standard and its role in maintaining peace in Europe in the 19th century. Far from peasant economies and mutual aid, this is a story of political intrigue and the power of global finance.

Polanyi describes four institutions that held 19th-century Europe together: the balance-of-power system, the gold standard, the self-regulating market and the liberal state. He is in no doubt about which mattered most: 'Of these institutions the gold standard proved crucial; its fall as the proximate cause of the catastrophe. By the time it failed, most of the other institutions had been sacrificed in a vain effort to save it.'

While history never repeats itself, this quotation made me ask myself which of the institutions and values we hold most dear we are willing to sacrifice to support the existing reserve currency system, and particularly the power of the dollar and the euro. The political pressure required to service the needs of finance today are ripping apart the social fabric, leading to the rise of nationalism and racism, the destruction of social services, and the waste of our skilled young people to unemployment.

Perhaps even more familiar is Polanyi's judgement on the impact on equality of the currency wars of the 1930s: 'Internally and externally alike, dwindling currenices spelled disruption. Nations found themselves separated from their neighbours, as by a chasm, while ta the same time the various strata of the population were affected in entirely different and often opposite ways. The intellectual middle class was literally pauperized; financial sharks heaped up revolting fortunes. A factor of incalculable integrating and disintegrating force had entered the scene.'

It is said that Karl Polanyi is an influence on Maurice Glasman, theorist of the self-parodying ideas of Blue Labour. In such quarters Polanyi's book appears to be used unopened, as an iconic support for mutual aid and communitarianism. But if Glasman and ilk have the influence they claim on Ed Miliband, Polanyi may soon be a name worth dropping.
. Tweet