Ideas Merchant Facing Institutional Challenge

This has been a week of mysterious coincidences. On Wednesday I made a presentation about co-operatives to a delegation from the Technical University of Chongqing who were visiting my own institution. This troubled me on many levels. It indicated the limitation of the globalised approach to HE: I simply could not identify a ground on which to make my approach to these people. I had utterly insufficient knowledge of their cultural and social understandings.

I was not a party to the reason for their visit and so was left to assume that we were hoping they would send us thousands of students and help keep us solvent in the competitive-global-knowledge-economy. Aside from my concern about the carbon impact of this strategy, I did not become an academic in order to train Chinese businessmen to be more effective capitalist managers. I sold them the idea of co-operatives as a means of negotiating over the value of labour production. I believe that they left unconvinced, and I cannot be sure whether I made them more or less likely to make a formal link with our university.

Given this experience at the sharp-end of the academic barrow, the violent debates over the shifting of the costs of higher education away from the public purse and onto individual students were gratifying. The general conclusion appears to be that this level of our national education has moved fully into the market. This will, according to David Willetts, improve the quality of teaching. Education is a product like a potato or a sports car. If others offer better or cheaper education (potatoes/cars) I will be forced to become a better teacher.

Although Willetts is fondly known as 'two brains' he appears to have practical experience of only one side of the teaching relationship. I think this shows in his approach to policy. My experience tells me that the awareness that your time is being bought by your students undermines the trust and respect that a teaching relationship requires. Far from seeking out more time with their professors, my experience suggests that students believe they have bought the degree when they arrive; turning up and being troubled with new ideas or, worse still, expected to actively engage with theoretical concepts is an affront to their consumer rights.

Much as Darian Leader so cogently argues for psychotherapy, education cannot be turned into a product. An education that is bought and sold will always be a poor education. Watching your students check their mobiles during a lecture, and wondering whether they are calculating if you have earned the £26.49 they paid for you since you entered the room, is a dispiriting experience that saps the confidence and encourages the sort of teaching that appears to be offering value for money: voluminous handouts and regurgitated facts.

Perhaps most important of all, real education is not always an enjoyable experience. Genuine education is emancipatory and revolutionary, which may be a reason why Conservatives distrust it. The good educator challenges the student's world-view and this cannot always be a comfortable experience. You know you are teaching successfully when you see a furrow begin to appear on the youthful skin of your students' foreheads. This connotes the performance of 'thinking', an activity that has been increasingly rare in universities since the advent of the market.
. Tweet

Anarchy in the UK

Yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of Peter Kropotkin, and we celebrated by drinking a toast to him in our local Stroud Brewery ale. As we heard from Stroud's leading anarchist Dennis Gould, Kropotkin had an extraordinary life. An aristocrat by birth, Kropotkin was engaged to undertake a geographical survey of Siberia. What he saw there - the appalling suffering of the people and their struggle for survival - revolutionised his worldview. He became caught up in the struggles for justice in his homeland towards the end of the 19th century.

Kropotkin was also a scientist, who extended Darwin's theory by arguing that 'mutual aid', or the human inclination towards co-operation rather than competition, was what he called 'a factor of evolution'. His studies of how small-scale communities might be viable are not theoretical but full of earthy detail. His sociological studies give us an insight into the working-class communities of industrial London. But he was capable of rhetorical flourishes too. Here is his stirring conclusion to the 1888 essay 'The Wage System':

And these voices will be heeded. The people will say to themselves: 'Let us begin by satisfying our needs of life, joy and freedom. And once all will have experienced this well-being we will set to work to demolish the last vestiges of the bourgeois regime, its morality, derived from the account book, its philosophy of 'debit' and 'credit', its institutions of mine and thine.

Kropotkin was forced into exile first in France and then in London. He returned to Russia following the revolution but strongly disapproved of the authoritarian nature of the Bolshevik regime.

This biography may seem miles away from the violence we saw on London's streets yesterday, but perhaps what links them is the simple word: freedom. To many, anarchy is the nihilistic violence that typified the punk movement. To Kropotkin it meant the freedom to live a dignified life and to aspire to the highest levels of self-expression within self-governing rural communities.

Riots of this level of violence on the streets of our capital and within yards of the 'mother of parliaments' are a rare occurrence and people do not undertake them lightly. The abandonment of higher education is merely the taper; it is the loss of democracy that spurs people to such action. It does not take a university-level education to understand that none of the parties who competed for our votes a mere eight months ago offered us this in their manifesto. When our representatives scorn our views, political mobilisation is the only possible response.

The political crisis that has been developing since the financial crisis broke in 2008 is more reminiscent of the events of the early 19th century than anything I can remember in my lifetime. The events that led to the mass mobilisation are strikingly similar: a loss of autonomy over livelihood, political disempowerment, and a government that serves its own rather than the national interest.

Shelley, who was a trenchant critic of the economic oppression of his times, even identified the creation of artificial value in the money system as one of the sources of injustic that drove the street protests. In his poem 'The Mask of Anarchy', written following the Peterloo Massacre in 1819, he included the stanza:

'Paper coin - that forgery
Of the title-deeds, which ye
Hold to something of the worth
Of the inheritance of Earth.'

In his day it was the debasement of paper money that enabled exploitation; in ours it is the ceding of the power of money creation to a self-serving banking system.

To merely condemn the actions of violent protestors, the automatic response of the powerful, is too simplistic. In an important Quaker testimony we are advised to:

Search out whatever in your own way of life may contain the seeds of war. Stand firm in our testimony, even when others commit or prepare to commit acts of violence, yet always remember that they too are children of God.

What history teaches is that when people witness blatant injustice in the distribution of resources and are deprived of a political route to right this wrong, then violence is an inevitable response.
. Tweet

Rethinking Resilience

The word resilience is going the way of sustainability - becoming so over-imbued with meaning that it becomes meaningless. I recently heard a presentation by somebody who was basing a whole research project around meanings of sustainability. It seems to me the time would have been better spent organising a Potato Day like the one we have coming up in Stroud.

For surely, resilience is about getting down and dirty in your local environment. It seems to me a contradiction in terms to travel away from home, as I do, to conduct academic research into what resilience or sustainability might mean. For the record we should be clear that these two are not the same. Sustainability is an approach to life that is respectful of the planet and all the species who enjoy it today and may enjoy it into the future. Resilience is a much more limited concept, which seeks to elucidate our relationship with natural systems.

The reason resilience is useful as a concept is that it has a fixed, physical definition, which we can use by analogy to explore what we are doing in planning our transition to sustainable living. Wikipedia defines resilience as 'the property of a material to absorb energy when it is deformed elastically and then, upon unloading to have this energy recovered.' This strikes me as a wonderfully inspiring definition if we apply it to our human communities. When they are challenged by environmental or social change, rather than fracturing, they can adapt to the stress temporarily and then unleash creative energy in response.

In these days of unexpectedly harsh weather, the word resilience has crept into many journalistic reports as an expression of what has limited our response. The suggestions for change focus around the expenditure of more energy and money, much as the proposed response to the environmental crisis apparently needs more technology.

But true resilience lies in the design of systems, not their technological sophistication. Because there will always be situations where the road between Glasgow and Edinburgh is likely to become impassable on some days of the year, an economy which requires large numbers of people to travel between these cities is not resilient by design. The large distances we travel for work and to acquire provisions are examples of poorly designed, non-resilient systems. Building resilient communities can enable sustainable living precisely because it will mean embedding deeper into your local environment, a key feature of the bioregional economy that will offer a resilient and a sustainable future. Tweet

Render unto Ceasar

Now that we are officially in Advent perhaps it is inevitable that your mind turns to Jesus, or perhaps I am just trying to make up for the fact that we have a Toy Story 3 advent calendar in the house this year and I want to believe there is something more meaningful about our foremost national festival. Whatever it is, I thought I would share my growing suspicion that Jesus may have been a green economist.

Of his many quotable quotes perhaps my favourite is 'Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.' This message, like John Ruskin's 'There is no wealth but life', seems redolent of the awe for life's abundance which guides a green approach to the economy. It is also a message against the Protestant work ethic and in favour of a relaxed approach to provisioning that is necessary for the sufficiency economy we are seeking to build. And the beards, long hair and sandals were an obvious clue.

But what about the harder edges of economic life? Did Jesus have anything to say about those? I am partial to the bits of the bible where Jesus ceases to be the rather effete, kindly 'new man' emblazoned on so many Sunday-school walls and really loses his rag. When he rages against the money-changers for example, or berates his friends for dropping asleep when he was in his hour of soul-searching crisis at Gethsemane.

I think Jesus might have been rather smarter about money than he has been given credit for. Remember, 'Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s', Jesus's response when asked whether his followers should pay their taxes to the Roman authority. Last night we had Mary Mellor here in town and she adeptly explained why taxation and money issue are two linked roles of the state, and why Jesus was quite right to say that taxes should be paid back to the issuing authority.

As Mary explains it, you cannot start an economy unless you have something to circulate: issuance of money must precede deposit. The history of money is a history of political authorities from Croesus through Medieval kings right down to the Bank of England issuing money and then taxing it back. The problems we are facing today result from the failure to understand the role taxation plays in enabling circulation, and the privatisation of this right to issue currency (the right of 'seignorage') so that it now belongs to the banks.

Because money now originates in the private sector the public sector cannot exercise the seignorage function and so has to rely on taxation alone to fund expenditure. If the state issued money directly then taxation would be used to prevent excessive circulation and the resulting inflation, rather than being a means to acquire money for investment. Since the UK state will not widen quantitative easing to encompass this function, it can only initiate monetary circulation and enable economic exchange through going into debt itself. Osborne's ideological resistance to this basic economic fact and his determination to eliminate the deficit means that he will choke off limit monetary circulation and destroy the economy.

The other biblical story about currency was Jesus's outburst in the temple, when he attacked the money-changers. Here he was rather less on-message, since temple money might be seen as skin to a local currency. It was exchanged for the national currency but could only be spent within the temple precincts, much as the Stroud Pound can only be spent in Stroud. However, Jesus's objection seems to have been to the inflated prices that were charged for what the temple traders were selling - mainly animals doomed to unpleasant, sacrificial deaths - so as long as pounds sterling and Stroud Pounds are exchanged one-for-one we should stay on the right side of doctrine. Somehow, though, the thought of the advent of Jesus to the Stroud Pound stall, upturning our tables and throwing a wobbly in the middle of town is a peversely appealing one. Tweet

Just Say 'No'

The Irish State faces a historical moment. In keeping with its tradition of courageous struggle for freedom and justice and the unique role that Irish people and culture have played on the world stage, Ireland can now be the country that stands up against the bullying forces of the financial markets. The morally unacceptable terms it is being offered mean that any other response is unthinkable.

The bond traders responded to Merkel's attempt to constrain their profiteering by downgrading Irish debt - thus raising the income they gain from it - increasing the costs imposed on the Irish state, and crucifying the Irish people. It is time for a proud nation to say no: default is better than humiliation.

Such a strategy will also turn the tide. Since the break-up of the euro nwo appears inevitable Ireland could be a player in the end-game, rather than a victim. The plan of the financial interests is to pick off one Euro country after another. This is similar to the financial contagion that began in South-East Asia in the 1990s, but with the added appeal that, as each country falls, Germany will pay off the traders. Ireland's default would signal the end of this process and force a political solution on the Eurozone. If Ireland does nothing Germany will come under increasing pressure itself to abandon the euro and create a new currency, leaving the smaller nations of Europe in turmoil.

And here is one I prepared earlier. All EU states should simultaneously suspend trading in their national debt. They should then agree interest rates that they are prepared to pay on their national bonds over a 10-year period. These rates would vary to reflect the nature of the economies involved, but only within narrow bands, and at much lower rates than are being paid today. New dated bonds with fixed returns would be issued up to a percentage of current holdings.

States would thus retake the power over their national economies. Traders could accept the terms or lose everything. Their game of extorting the value of national economies through pressurising their politicians would be finished.

This radical political move would clearly have serious implications for the other global currencies, and especially the dollar. But it would bring the interests of citizens back into play and increase the pressure for urgent negotiations to establish a new global financial architecture which serves people rather than financial interests.
. Tweet

Merkel Confronts the Market Wolves

Throughout the years of financial crisis it has been notable that financial and business interests have been writing the story. Media analysts have been colluding: those who understand what is going on are in the pockets of the business lobbyists; those who do not are scared to reveal their ignorance. The result is that we are being sold a lie.

The official version of what is happening in the finance markets goes like this. Countries are in debt so they look like a bad risk. The debt of risky countries is harder to sell and so the price falls and traders need to be offered a better rate of interest to accept it. Traders will not buy it at all unless they are convinced about the soundness of the national economy selling it, so that markets demand that countries introduce austerity measures. If they are not satistifed the austerity must be made more austere.

The truth is different. As they pick on each country in turn the bond traders create a self-fulfilling prophecy. They (through the credit-rating agencies) downgrade the surety of the country's debt. Its price falls and the return they gain from holding it rises. Thus their creation of this story is a simple means of increasing their profits. They feel they can still squeeze more out of Irish debt, hence the story that the 'markets don't believe' the Irish government is secure. Once they have destroyed Ireland they will move on to Portugal, Spain and even Belgium, according to today's story. Governments in those countries tremble and beat up on their own people.

Understanding the behaviour of market traders is not difficult; devising policy to counteract it is. The process of globalisation meant the signing away of political power over economics, so even when the free operation of finance markets is clearly disastrous for the world's people politicians feel powerless. If one country acted alone they would face the massive movement of speculative money and, as Black Wednesday proved, no country or currency can withstand that.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been clearest about the need for political action, perhaps because she represents the strongest economy, perhaps because of the folk memory of the 1930s and the destructive consequences unrestrained finance wreaked then, perhaps because she grew up in a debt-averse Protestant home. First she called for political controls over credit-rating and now she is suggesting that the bond-holders should contribute to paying for the costs of the crises they are causing, shifting the balance of their incentives away from destroying domestic economies. These represent the first feeble attempts to reassert political authority over the globalised economy. "Have politicians got the courage to make those who earn money share in the risk as well? Or is dealing in government debt the only business in the world economy that involves no risk?" she asked on Wednesday.

Gordon Brown is short of a job these days. Perhaps the son and daughter of the church could combine their efforts in devising a plan for European governments to take charge. If he really wants to save the world, now could be just the right time.
. Tweet

The Happiness Crusade

The demonstration I was on yesterday in Cardiff was so much fun it went on all night. If you are a tweeter you can support the protest by sending a message of support. The demonstration was lively, noisy and made up of a mixed bag of students and schoolkids, leavened with a mix of Marxists, socialist workers and Greens. We were already well into chanting when the younger students arrived in their own march to great cheers - what somebody on the Twitter feed has called 'the children's crusade'.



Protesting is turning out to be so much fun that it makes me wonder whether this is part of Cameron's reason for beginning to measure happiness since, as the graphic shows, close social connections make people happier than money, once their basic needs are met (thanks to nef for the graphic, and their leading research in this area). Labour's creation of the disturbingly oxymoronic position of Happiness Tsar has been taken up by the Condems who have instructed their national statistician to begin a programme of scientific measurement of how jolly we all are.

Unlike in Bhutan, however, happiness is not to become the focus of policy-making, merely an adjunct to the measure of economic growth which is, as the PM will tell us later today, the real source of all our aspirations. If Richard Douthwaite was right in his seminal book The Growth Illusion in establishing that, beyond a certain point, growth actually detracts from our happiness, then this is a circle that simply cannot be squared. Instead we need to be developing policies for the post-growth world, as in the recent example of participatory policy development at the Leeds Steady State Economy conference, whose report was recently published.
. Tweet