Dear Friend,
Economic growth and development cannot be made possible without addressing various ethical and environmental issues. These questions are more pronounced in the light of resource scarcity and environmental depletion. If we do not make the adjustments needed to achieve a sustainable economy, the world will become even more polluted and even emptier of fish, fossil fuels and other natural resources. For a while, such losses may continue to be masked by the faulty GDP- based accounting that measures consumption of resources as income. But the disaster will be felt eventually. Avoiding this calamity will be difficult. And the bell rings… will they hear?
Kindly support honest journalism to survive. https://countercurrents.org/subscription/
If you think the contents of this news letter are critical for the dignified living and survival of humanity and other species on earth, please forward it to your friends and spread the word. It's time for humanity to come together as
one family! You can subscribe to our news letter here http://www.countercurrents.org/news-letter/.
In Solidarity
Binu Mathew
Editor
Countercurrents.org
The Bell is tolling; Are you listening, Growth maniacs?! Economy of Development Vs Economy of Permanence
by K Sahadevan
Economic growth and development cannot be made possible without addressing various ethical and environmental issues. These questions are more pronounced in the light of resource scarcity and environmental depletion. If we do not make the adjustments needed to achieve a sustainable economy, the world will become even more polluted and even emptier of fish, fossil fuels and other natural resources. For a while, such losses may continue to be masked by the faulty GDP- based accounting that measures consumption of resources as income. But the disaster will be felt eventually.
Avoiding this calamity will be difficult. And the bell rings… will they hear?
Kenneth E Boulding, an English-American economist and an interdisciplinary philosopher once said; “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” Further, he added, “unfortunately, we all are economists.” Boulding made this statement in 70’s. Sad to say that, we still adhere to the illusion implied by Boulding for a little less than half a century ago!
“There is no conflict between economics and environmental science. Economic growth can be continually sustained without doing any harm to the environment and its protection”. The statement is often articulated by economists as well as those people who are considered to be the official spokespersons of development. They try to convey their views and convince the general public whenever they get a chance during a debate which involves development and environmental problem. For the time being, we may feel that the statement is true, but may soon realize that situation is grave and the proclamation of this kind did not involve serious discussions about the depth of the crises and comes out of our ignorance about the problem we are facing now.
What could be the true nature of the idea that “endless economic growth is possible with environmental protection” that the conventional economic theorists argued with? The statement is trying to make us to believe that the world is facing very simple crises that could be overcome by appropriate, yet simple corrections to the existing system and thus does not require a paradigm shift. It is high time to realize that these statements bear only half-filled truth and may arise out of confusions concerning the level of understanding about the concepts of aggregate growth and the possibility if recycled use of resources. The conventional economists’ treats aggregate growth as the growth additions to the market value of final goods and services produced in an economy.
An economy forms a subsystem of the greater biosphere in which we live. The biosphere should be seen as finite, non-growing, closed (except for the constant input of solar energy) and constrained by the laws of thermodynamics. There is nothing new except sunlight enters into the earth. This means that whatever physical and natural resources we have is limited and are produced due to geological activities of millions of years. When the economy’s expansion encroaches too much on its surrounding ecosystem, it uses more and more energy and matter by shifting them from their natural uses to more artificial ones. Thus the human economic interventions would bring the bio-system into a state of diminution in which a return would be nearly impossible. So the mainstream (also known as neoclassical) economists held the view that there is no conflict between economic growth and the environment will not hold well. Recycling on growth in this way might be fine in the global economy existed in a void, but it does not. Rather the economy is a subsystem of the finite biosphere that supports it. As long as the goal of continuing growth remains, the conflicts between economy and environment will be inevitable.
But the facts are plain and incontestable. It is very clear to everyone that the economy is only a subsystem of a greater bio-system. Any subsystem, such as economy, must at some point cease growing and adapt itself to a dynamic equilibrium. Something like a steady state. But the neoclassical or mainstream economists unfortunately were in a denial mode. They still believe that growth is the panacea for all economic ills and largely ignore the issue of sustainability and trust that because “we have come so far with growth, we can keep on going ad infinitum”. Unfortunately, many of them are comfortably enjoying the rank of advisers and policy makers to developing and developed economies who design the future course of action.
A recent study conducted by the British Natural Capital Society reasserts that “environment cannot be seen in isolation from the economy, it is part and parcel of it. It is our duty that a cordial relationship between these two would be ensured without losing any opportunities to guarantee economic growth”. Their approach is explicit and supports the whole neoclassical doctrine that economic growth should be maintained by adopting temporary measures to cure environmental problems. Unfortunately, their views dominate the world and thus laid the foundation stone of the crises we faces today.
Exponential Growth in a Finite Planet!
In order to understand the physical limits within which the economy operates, it is imperative to have a theoretical understanding of ‘empty world and full world’, the concepts developed by Herman E Daly, an American ecological economist. The term empty world implies that the economy could be seen as a subsystem of an ecosystem, there still would be no need to stop growing as long as the subsystem is very small compared to the larger ecosystem. In this ‘empty world vision’, the environment is not scarce and the opportunity cost of the expansion of the economy is insignificant. The earth is a closed system which imports and exports energy only, matter circulates within the system but does not flow through it. Our economic efforts are aimed at converting matter and the energy in the biosphere into economic goods and services.
Continued growth of physical economy in a finite and non growing ecosystem will eventually lead to the ‘full world economy’ in which the welfare from ecological services diminishes. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the system will be plunged into a state of entropy. The reduction in the amount of energy and matter in the biosphere is increasingly felt.
In an empty world the economic system is very small compared to the ecosystem. This is mainly due to two important reasons. One reason cited for this is man’s limited technological knowledge for the extraction and economic use of environmental resources. Moreover the biological growth of natural resources is faster than its extraction rate. In other words, natural resources are not scarce in an empty world. This statement is true only in an economic sense and in physical sense it can only be partly true.
Neoclassical growth theories and principles have undergone a lot of change since its beginning. Empty world became a full world driven by economic growth. The numbers of potential consumers are multiplied during the past centuries. Material goods and services were multiplied at the rate in which the rate of change in economic activities took place. Growth in multiple scale happened not only to abiotic material goods such as building, vehicles and electronic equipments, but also biotic species such as cattle, goats, chicken etc. According to the laws of thermodynamics, the high growth rate of biotic and abiotic components in an economic system requires high rate of consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resources. This will increase the generation of waste with high entropy content and use the finite environment as a waste sink. Accordingly, excessive growth of these material goods breaks the natural order of the ecosystem; the ultimate result of this extravaganza could be seen in the form of serious ecological and environmental catastrophe such as depletion of natural resources, climate changes and global warming. The greatest mistakes of the mainstream economics are that they failed to take account of the growth and decay of materials went through certain forms of operations. It is convenient for the growth proponents to neglect these concepts which form the basic meaning of the second law of thermodynamics. But it is impossible to ignore these facts as the rhythm of nature affected. It is high time to realize that the long term existence of mankind depends on the early detection of the warning shots and a complete turnaround of economic theories and systems.
Conventional neoclassical economists might define economic growth as increase in the economy in terms of production goods and services, typically measured by GDP. Viewing growth rate in terms of GPD shows a rosy picture to the existing economic order, but the same time creates a inauspicious situation. They often view GDP growth as the ultimate goal, but the ecological economists do not. Ecological economists try to distinguish development that of growth. According to them, an economy can develop without growing, grow without developing, or do both at the same time but may be at a different scale.
GDP growth involves the flow of natural resources from the environment through the economy and back to the environment as waste. It is only a quantitative increase in the physical dimension of the economy and thus would be seen different from that of development, which we define as qualitative changes. The idea of sustainable development advocated by the ecological economists is development without growth- that is qualitative improvement in the ability to satisfy wants without a quantitative increase. Development of this kind should not come into conflict with environment.
Conventional economist’s response to resource scarcity usually comes in three ways, Firstly they were in denial mode and tried to hide the symptoms of scarcity from the outer world. Secondly, they will continue to create fallacies by presenting the GDP growth figures and finally, they will try to convince the world about the perfect sustainability of natural capital with that of man-made capital. On the whole, they were not ready to accept the basic facts that human being cannot create anything new by themselves and could only convert the matter and energy from one form to another using labor and capital.
A basic understanding of three more fundamental concepts helps us to know more about limits to growth. These are the Futility Limit-limit to production-, Ecological Catastrophe limit and Economic Limit. As economic growth proceeds, a state occurs in which the process of production cannot be continued further. This is called the futility limit, where the marginal utility of production fall to zero. Even with no cost of production, there is a limit to how much we can consume and enjoy it. There is a limit to how many goods we can enjoy in a given time period as well as a limit to our stomachs and to the sensory capacity or our nervous systems. The Ecological Catastrophe limit occurs when human activity, or the novel combination of activities, may induce a chain reaction, or tipping point, and collapse our ecological niche. The leading candidate for the catastrophe limit at present is runaway climate change induced by greenhouse gases emitted in pursuit of economic growth. The increase in production and consumption can be called economic growth only up to the ‘Economic Limit’. Beyond that point it becomes uneconomic growth because it increases costs by more than benefits, making us poorer not richer. The good thing about the economic limit is that it would appear to be the first certainly occurs before the futility limit and likely before catastrophe limit, although as just noted that is uncertain. At worst the catastrophe limit might coincide with and discontinuously determine the economic limit.
The constraints, both ecological and economical can only be solved through identifying economic system as a subsystem of a finite, non-growing biosphere rather than viewing itself as a self sufficient whole entity. This requires a general understanding of the following strategies; 1. Economic Imperialism; 2. Ecological Reductionism; 3. Steady state subsystem. Each strategy may be thought of as beginning with the picture of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem. This would be help us to set priorities, form policies and shape our outlook regarding the issue.
Economic Imperialism, Ecological Reductionism, Steady state subsystem
Economic Imperialism tries to expand the boundary of economic subsystem within the finite biosphere. It does not share the consequence of resource constraints. Economic imperialism solely depends on the continuous growth. The basic tenet of it lies in continued economic growth through competitive market mechanism and conversion of natural resources into marketable goods and services. It always performs functions such as the process which natural capital could be transformed to satisfy individual needs and motives and thereby encourage endless consumption behavior among human beings.
Economic imperialism is basically a neoclassical approach. It tries to satisfy human wants through continuously growing an economy within the finite biosphere. This is to be accomplished by complete internalization of all external costs and benefits into prices. But an important limitation to this monetization of expenditure is that, many times we are unable to assimilate or predict, the actual expenses of various economic activities (it is nearly impossible to assimilate the cost of global warming, loss of biodiversity and destruction of ecological balance-. And the most important things, as the economy expands, the ecological services available to us at free of cost, are dwindling day by day.
Ecological reduction begins with the true insight that humans are not exempt from the laws of nature. It then proceeds to the false interference that human action is totally explainable by the laws of nature. It seeks to explain whatever happens within the economic subsystem by exactly the same naturalistic principles that it applies to the rest of the ecosystem. It shrinks the economic subsystem to nothing, erasing the boundary.
Steady state economics try to see the economy as a part of the biosphere and maintain constant stocks wealth and people at levels that are sufficient for a long and good life. The system is sustainable-it can continue long time. it aims for an all encompassing development rather than infinite growth. The path of progress in the steady state is no longer get bigger, but to get better. It does not attempt eliminate the subsystem boundary, either by expanding it to coincide with the whole system or by reducing by it nothing. Rather it affirms the fundamental necessity of the boundary and the importance of drawing it in the right place. It says that the scale of the human subsystem defined by the boundary has an optimum with satisfactory standard of living, and gives emphasis to a pattern of a development with low entropy by which the ecosystem maintains and replenishes the economic subsystem at ecologically sustainable levels. Steady state economics works diametrically opposite to the economic imperialism which is riding on the principles of endless economic growth and devours natural resources on bigger scale and alters it into high entropy wastes.
Before getting into an economic activity, it is imperative to address some pertinent issues. What is the desirable goal of an economic activity? It is very difficult to attain our goals as long as we fail to define them. Secondly, what are the resources available for us to fulfill our satiety? Finally, what constitute the physical and structural characteristic features of these resources?
As a universal rule, everyone agrees with the objectives of a general advancement in the wellbeing of present as well as future generations. It is important to acknowledge three fundamental things to attain such objectives and to guide to the economy into a steady and sustainable development path. They are 1. a measure of environmental sustainability 2. Equitable distribution of wealth and resources and 3. Efficient allocation of resources.
Herman E Daly presents a steady state economic system as an alternative to economic imperialism and ecological reduction. He also suggests some measures for the planning and utilization of scarce resources in the future:
- To make control over the utilization of natural capital and maintain the health of ecosystems and the life support services they provide, renewable resources should be extracted at a rate less than their biological growth rate. The rate of extraction of non-renewable resources should be reduced drastically until alternatives are explored. Deposit waste in the environment at a rate no faster than they can be safely assimilated. Based on these important facts, natural capital should be utilized, allocated based on the principles of sustainability, equity and efficiency.
- A complete reform in the taxation policy is mandatory to bring control over the use of natural resources. The tax rate should be framed by taking into account of the social and environmental consequences of natural resource use instead of conventional value added method.
- Efforts should be taken to limit the accrual of income and wealth in the hands of a few people and thereby curb the plutocratic dominance inherently fundamental to the market mechanism.
- The dominance of finance capital and unfettered free trade should be controlled.
- Increase the leisure time so that more pleasure can be derived from recreation and other entertainment etc.
Economic growth and development cannot be made possible without addressing various ethical and environmental issues. These questions are more pronounced in the light of resource scarcity and environmental depletion. If we do not make the adjustments needed to achieve a sustainable economy, the world will become even more polluted and even emptier of fish, fossil fuels and other natural resources. For a while, such losses may continue to be masked by the faulty GDP- based accounting that measures consumption of resources as income. But the disaster will be felt eventually. Avoiding this calamity will be difficult. And the bell rings… will they hear?
References:
- The state of Natural Capital, protecting and improving natural capital for prosperity and well being, the third report of the Economic Affairs Committee, Natural Capital Committee, UK. (2014).
- Ecological Economics; Czech, Brian; Centre for the Advancement of Steady State Economy, Virginia, US.
- Sustainability in Ecological Economics, Ecology and Livelihoods: a review; Sneddon, Christopher S; Department of Geography program in Environmental Studies; Hanover, USA.
- The Law of Energy for Sustainable Development; (edited), Bradbrook, Andrian J., et al; Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- What is Ecological Economics?; Constanza, Robert; Centre for Environmental and Eusterine Studies; University of Maryland, MD, USA.
- Ecological Economics, Principle and practice; Daly, Herman E, Farley Joshua; Island press, Washington DC, 2004
K.Sahadevan is an environmentalist from Kerala. He has been writing on Energy, Economics and Environment past few decades. He has authored half a dozen books on different topics and a regular contributor of Various Journals and Newspapers.
Gearing Up or Dying Down
by Collective 20
We have tried to point out some key factors that cause our movements to grow but then decline. We have tried to suggest some methods to overcome those debilitating factors. But our main point is not our specific observations and suggestions. It is that the reasons for repeated movement decline ought to be a central focus of movement thinking and doing so we can develop still better observations and suggestions – so we can gear up, and then not die down.
Since the 1960s, how many movements have excitedly exploded into existence, only to later morbidly melt away? In contrast, how many movements have constantly interminably grown and strengthened over time?
The answer, best we can tell, is that most movements have rapidly grown during their initial stages, only to lethargically decline later. Most movements gloriously birth and later ingloriously die.
You might ask, “what’s your point?” We might answer, “winning a new world isn’t easy.” You might reply, “but that’s obvious.” We might respond, “You lose, you lose, you lose, you win. It is hard to revolutionize the basic structures of life but once you do so you have done so.” Put differently, even though each of our attempts for a half century have failed to interminably grow and strengthen, nonetheless we must try and try again.
But why do our excitedly born movements so often morbidly age? Why do we so often gear up but then die down?
The two usual answers for what deters us from interminably growing are coercive repression and media machinations. We add a third factor: too many of us aren’t trying to win in the first place, so of course we don’t. And to us a fourth factor seems at least as important. We are too often our own worst enemy. Of course there are other factors, but for another time.
First, consider coercive repression. The system we abhor overtly defends itself however it can, including political assassinations, jailing, exiling, and intimidating. But the effectiveness of coercive repression depends greatly on how we react to it. To the extent our actions provoke and make coercive repression appear warranted, coercive repression becomes aggressively more effective. To the extent we endlessly tout its power and even become paranoid about its ubiquity, coercive repression becomes insidiously more effective. To the extent we move our focus from mainly communicating our own aims and methods to instead bemoaning their repressiveness, coercive repression becomes disorientingly more effective.
On the other hand, if we reduce the means of coercive repression by defunding it and if we diminish it by imposing restrictions on it, but even more so if we subvert coercive repression by joining the military or police and organizing them from within – or if we at least compellingly communicate with coercive repression’s rank and file not only about our situation but about theirs as well, coercive repression becomes less effective. Likewise, if we organize to ensure that acts of repression so affront the broad public as to strengthen rather than diminish activism’s support, coercive repression becomes less effective. Since overcoming both genuine fear but also the paranoia surrounding coercive repression benefits winning a new society, we believe these approaches merit attention and perhaps action. We don’t claim this is an easy task, but a necessary one.
Second, consider mainstream media machinations. This factor reflects that the sexist, racist, classist system has endless resources as well as endless greed and dismissiveness. The corporate megaphone interminably inundates billions of households across the globe. Our megaphone intermittently reaches a tiny fraction of households across the globe. They lie, manipulate, and pile it on, over and over. They shower us with denials and depredations. They normalize what we seek to replace. They unrelentingly assault our trajectory of growth until it becomes a trajectory of decline. If to escape their wrath we bend our words to appeal to mainstream media’s logic, or we succumb to mainstream media’s premises, or we accept mainstream media’s entreaties and mimic its perversions, we empower mainstream media and disempower ourselves. If we let their news cycle determine our focus, if we redundantly communicate messages and ideas that we know will receive applause from a comfortable and friendly audience but will not challenge those who hear, see, or read our work to find new paths forward, we strengthen the mainstream and weaken ourselves. If we mimic mainstream media’s methods or modes instead of utilizing new ways to communicate and convey knowledge and ideas, they gain, we lose. Their masthead features racist, sexist, capitalist types. Our masthead features anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-capitalist types – but we each have a masthead.
We therefore urge that we reveal mainstream media machinations and aid efforts within the mainstream media’s structures seeking reforms to mitigate and replace its oppressive features. And that we simultaneously assault mainstream media from outside with movements demanding changes but also creating alternatives in ways that don’t replicate the worst elements of mainstream media but that instead develop a real antithesis structured to communicate what is true and needed to win real change. In these ways we can diminish their power and advance ours. If we see mainstream media not merely as vile individuals hijacking the truth, but as vile institutions that we should challenge no less creatively than we challenge arms manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies, we will disempower mainstream media and lay the groundwork for alternatives that reach billions of people across the globe. So: Press the press. If we establish and build needed alternatives to mainstream media in ways that plant the seeds of a better future in the present, not only via the words they convey, but via the structures they establish, we will overcome mainstream media machinations with alternative media innovations. So: Do it our way.
Third, consider intrinsic defeatism. Is our asserting that too often too many of us aren’t really trying to win a new society in the first place controversial? “Fight the good fight” sounds nice, but essentially it says you know you are going to lose, but you should feel and look good doing it. “Keep your chin up” – until you are flat on the ground, that is. Likewise, a silo doesn’t intimate a new world. Or, consider “Dare to struggle, dare to win.” The first part is clear enough. It does take outsized confidence, optimism, and drive to struggle against massive obstacles. We do have to “dare to struggle.” But why do we have to “dare to win”? Why wouldn’t we desire to win, hunger to win, be desperately eager to win, and so, plan and prepare to win?
The truth is that all too often seeking to win a new society, not just modest or isolated gains, seems like seeking the dauntingly impossible. The truth is that all too often we don’t even think about what winning a new society would mean. We don’t even envision much less compellingly communicate what full victory would look like. Why bother? It is not on the agenda. People ask, “what do you want?” We answer with worthy aspirations like “peace,” “justice,” or “freedom,” but we don’t offer a large scale vision of what could replace racism, sexism, and particularly capitalism. We have shared short term aims. We do not have shared institutional vision for post markets, post private ownership, post corporate structure, post racism, post sexism. In fact, many of us don’t think very much about post anything, in part because we don’t really expect to get there.
But not knowing and conveying where we want to arrive impedes our planting the institutional seeds of the future in the present. What future? It impedes orienting our actions to lead where we want to go. Where is that? It impedes our combatting hopelessness and cynicism with positive vision that can inspire and guide. What positive vision?
We brilliantly provide robust, nuanced, deep, and scathing critiques. We rarely suggest positive end-point alternatives. We tirelessly detail the strength and venality of existing institutions. We barely intimate viable and worthy full scale alternatives. We are expert dystopians. Sometimes activists brilliantly and courageously seek new forms and structures attainable on small scale in the present: alternative worker controlled structures, food and workplace co-ops, schools, autonomous zones. But regarding larger scales, we are neophyte real utopians.
We say join us to reduce poverty, end alienation, curtail global warming, eradicate racism, and terminate sexism. Join us to enrich, embolden, and liberate life for all. We say it well. People excitedly join. But before too long people wonder, where more specifically are we going – for all? How more specifically are we getting there – for all? Receiving no compelling and defensible large scale for-all reply, their energy depletes. Their motivation wanes. We have all seen it. We have all endured it. Hope dissipates. A movement busy being born becomes a movement busy dying.
To address this third obstacle, how about modifying our focus? What if we devote as much effort to developing, refining, and sharing long-term large-scale vision and strategy as we devote to understanding and critiquing the system around us? What if when working in movements seeking current change we are able to convey, as well, how the current change moves us toward longer term aims which we also elaborate? Vice versa, what if we take our long term aims for culture, gender relations, workplace arrangements, allocation, political decision making, education, or what have you, and use those to arrive at short term aims, and methods, and especially to inform experimental new forms that lead toward our preferred future and that ensure that struggles for immediate aims persist past immediate victories? Mightn’t doing these things more than we now do help arouse and sustain long-term hope and program? Mightn’t it help undermine the process of movements dying? Mightn’t it help movements grow toward winning a new society? So: Act in the now, but aim at the future.
So far, we have briefly described three demobilizing factors – coercive repression, media machinations, and insufficient attention to vision and strategy – and we have offered brief, yet hopefully interesting forays into what might reduce their damage and thereby increase our ability to grow our movements until we win.
But what about the fourth factor? What about being our own worst enemy? What if that fourth factor is so powerful that even if we do much better regarding the first three, the fourth will repeatedly result in the decline of our movements? In that case, we must centrally address not just coercive repression, media machinations, and under attention to vision, but also a destructive dynamic that sits literally within ourselves. Being our own worst enemy is less comfortable to talk about than the other factors. It’s not imposed on us and we can’t put the blame elsewhere. The problem is us. Being our own worst enemy is also harder to even describe, let alone confront. Yes, it may be imposed by our surroundings, almost like a disease spread by oppressive social relations right into our very thoughts and habits – but still, however it got there, the problem takes root within.
The tendencies we have in mind are difficult to pin down but become evident in disputes. Yet this is not about being right or wrong in a particular dispute. It isn’t about ‘positions’ or ‘policies.’ Being our own worst enemy is instead about the toxic ways in which we often behave toward each other that are apparent to those both inside and outside our movements. Our self-defeating behaviors are not so much thought out as habitual and reflexive. They aren’t policy commitments but they nonetheless create an environment that causes movement members distress and depression. They burn us out. They fuel our movements morbidly dying.
We believe these behaviors manifest in numerous ways, but particularly surrounding a handful of concepts and factors which must be perceived in the hope of overcoming them. That said, we have no illusions that we will fully succeed. We offer four broad types of toxic dynamics, all intimately related to the other three and each intensifying, causing, and being caused by the other three. Hopefully, our list, found by looking within our own actions and experiences, contributes to a conversation about internal movement relations and behaviors. And while we of course understand that racism and sexism are also profoundly toxic internal movement relations and behaviors and that they are also far from fully solved and that they also cause internal tensions and ills that produce deadening decline, and in different ways than those we are addressing, we here focus on the other factors because racism and sexism have been brilliantly addressed and widely prioritized in numerous essays, books, conversations, and debates, while the problems we here address are far less acknowledged, much less treated.
So why are we our own worst enemy? First, we are very often sectarian. We, like others, convert ideas into part of our own self definition, and we then defend our self definition more or less as we would defend our bodies – not solely with calm evidence and logic, but with outraged rejection of the incoming blow or with aggressive disavowal of disagreement. We know what it looks like.
When sectarianism is a group phenomenon, organizations, groups, or tendencies identify with a particular ideology. Sectarian groups tend to be small, and stay small. Their clashes with other groups tend to debilitate those involved and those watching. Everyone on the left knows this phenomenon, even if we each often only see it in others. Less sectarianism requires we more sincerely reach out to meet people where they are at. It requires that we more congenially and sympathetically debate topics with those who differ, that we more collectively participate with others in worthwhile campaigns that result in actual victories for people in need. In contrast, more sectarianism comes when we ever more fiercely define ourselves with inflexible ideologies. It comes when we adopt a kind of almost robotic a priori untouchable attachment to singular stances – and whether our stance is right or (more often) wrong is beside the point. Unchallengeable commitment to doctrine, not debatable belief, is the give away sign. Such sectarianism augers less growth, more morbidity.
But the dynamics don’t have to be those of a group and the group dynamics in any case owe to each member’s mentalities. We can individually become so attached to some idea or set of ideas that whenever someone disagrees with our sacred belief, much less criticizes it, their dissent or even their doubt feels to us like a personal attack. It feels like an assault on our very being. In reply, we don’t consider and discuss. We strike back. Groups do it. Individuals do it. We become mechanical about ideas that we feel as parts of our self definition. The ideas become sacred to us. We hold them like prized and even loved entities. We no longer entertain the slightest doubt about their validity and importance. We cannot permit the slightest doubt. We forbid the slightest doubt. We don’t try to convince a dissenter by reason, much less do we seriously consider a dissenter’s logic or validity. We assert by authority. We no longer hear and respond sensibly even to doubt much less to disagreement. We dismiss dissent or we steamroll it. Put two individuals, or two arrays of individuals in proximity, each sectarian, and with the two at odds regarding some view or views, and there unfolds a dynamic that horrifies everyone sensible who encounters it. Sectarian belief repels folks. It produces morbid decline. If you haven’t encountered it, if you don’t know it first hand, terrific. Maybe you can skip thinking about how to reduce it.
But, for the rest of us, what might we do to reduce the likelihood of sectarianism in ourselves and in our movements? It may seem trite but we might avoid so closely identifying beliefs we have with who we are. We might avoid perceiving doubts about our beliefs as attacks on our being. We might diminish our defensiveness and so also our offensiveness. We might take the attitude that people finding fault with something that we have done or with something that we think, is a potential path toward doing better or thinking wiser. Instead of celebrating being permanently right and never changing our views, we might celebrate perpetually improving. We might hope criticisms of our views or actions have merit so we can improve. We might stop taking for granted that criticisms we hear are malicious threats. And when confronted with sectarian rejection we might pause to defuse rather than rush to escalate.
But sectarianism isn’t our only self defeating behavior. We are very often excessively perfectionist and adversarially denigrationist. We adopt some standard or belief as to what constitutes proper behavior and thereafter when anyone acts in a way that we can even remotely interpret as not living up to our standard, we rush to conclude that acts that could conceivably be ill motivated are certainly in fact ill motivated. We assume any act that could conceivably derive from less than perfect attitudes and behaviors in fact definitely derives from horribly imperfect attitudes and behaviors. We interpret, we spin, until whoever doubts or questions us appears to us vile. We more or less instantly move from thinking an act ill motivated – merely meaning not complying with our notions of perfection – to attacking, even viciously, the person involved without the slightest inclination toward understanding much less sympathizing with his or her actual intents.
Perfectionism can take many forms. We talk to death a policy because we are fearful of falling short of perfect. Same for an action. We consider problems, work to avoid or alleviate them, but then sometimes continue to worry, perhaps not entirely without reason, but nearly entirely without benefit, that any mistake could be catastrophic so best do nothing. Each side of a dispute starts to feel events must go “my way” or the opposition should disembark for “the highway” because we feel our way is perfect and every other way is catastrophic. And ironically the polarization often occurs absent meaningful conversation about vision, goals, strategies, and even tactics. We just clash our assumed and asserted perfections, often without even a semblance of a serious argument on behalf of one or another.
Denigrationism is brutal and often accompanies sectarianism and perfectionism. It often defends “perfection” or attacks “imperfection.” It can evidence insecurity as much as over confidence. We attack when anyone seems to step outside or beneath our narrow view of perfection, not just when they challenge our self definition.
Denigrationism is brutal and often accompanies sectarianism and perfectionism. It often defends “perfection” or attacks “imperfection.” It can evidence insecurity as much as over confidence. We attack when anyone seems to step outside or beneath our narrow view of perfection, not just when they challenge our self definition.
Yes, there are really and sometimes deep differences. But aren’t we all familiar with folks sitting around and berating, even ridiculing, other organizations and people? Aren’t we all familiar with being friendly with, or even admiring and allying one day, only to defame and castigate the next – because of some purported but ultimately minimal deviation?
For example, right now, leftists around the United States are debating whether or not we should aid Joe Biden’s campaign. Let’s assume that most of the people “knocking on doors” for Joe Biden not only want to defeat Donald Trump but would like to see a more just, equitable, and reasonable world. As leftists, we might disagree that Joe Biden is committed to creating such a world, but we might agree that it makes strategic sense to vote for Joe Biden. Should we then deem those who reject lesser evil voting where it may matter as moral cretins or otherwise cast them to the category enemy? Or, let’s say, instead, that we don’t agree that it makes strategic sense to vote for Biden in contested states. Should we then call Joe Biden’s supporters or even those who only say vote for him in contested states, a bunch of liberal-sellout-pieces of scum who love an accused rapist? Neither approach to a contrary stance makes sense if we’re interested in bringing anyone to our side. It doesn’t make sense on a political level. It doesn’t make sense on a human/social level. And it creates toxicity that produces morbidity. We can and must engage in disagreements about policies. Progress requires it. But disagreement should never devolve into personal attacks on ethics and motives and into horizontal hostility. Good comedy punches up. The same is true of good politics: save vitriol for those in power.
So what can we do to reduce our perfectionism and defang our denigrationism? We can assume, let’s say 98 out of 100 times, that whoever is involved with leftwing politics is involved because they genuinely want to change the world. They care about human beings and the planet. They want what’s best for everyone. If we start with that assumption, if we have patience and humility, we can overcome denigrationism. We can assume the best, not the worst, of others. We can try to empathize with others and even to question the universality or even the merit of our own standards. We can realize that before one is “perfect” one is imperfect, and we can realize being imperfect is not a sin against humanity but a sign of a possible area of improvement, or, perhaps, not even an imperfection at all. And even when we are absolutely certain there is serious deviation from obviously valid norms, we can try to understand why. We can not impute vile motives. We can try not just to listen but to hear and not just to hear when what’s said is to our liking, but still more so when it isn’t. We can try to be able to not only see a contrary side, but to make the other person’s best case. And we can leave viciousness behind, way behind.
Finally, as still another debit, we have what we might call left academicism and elitism, or, more instructively, classism. By this we mean something very much like the well understood morally horrible and strategically suicidal tendencies to dismiss or underestimate and even revile and reject people on grounds of race or gender, but in this case to do so on grounds of class. And we have in mind not simply the behavior of the owning class toward everyone below, but also the behavior of what some call the professional managerial class, or the coordinator class, or even just – seriously confusing what class is – the middle class (though we have in mind roughly the top 20% of the population) – toward workers below. And more, we have in mind not only overtly personally directly reducing, rejecting, or reviling people, but (as also occurs with race and gender) establishing or abiding impersonal social conditions that implicitly but no less destructively reduce, reject, or revile people.
We are talking about ridiculing working class culture, working class tastes, working class lives. We are talking about assuming and expecting worker subordination, even worker obedience. We are talking about employing language workers are largely shut out from, language they haven’t experienced, even language they identify not unreasonably with their own diminishment. No one wishes to admit any of this could be real, it is so ugly.
But working class people are 80 percent of the population. What percent of attendees at anti-war meetings, green meetings, anti-sexist meetings, even anti-racist meetings are members of the working class proper. What percent do work that disempowers them, do work that is subordinate not only to distant owners, but also to much nearer managers, lawyers, professionals, and coordinator class members situated below capital but above workers?
We are talking about how we allot tasks and duties within our organizations and within the movement in a way that replicates and reproduces the corporate class, race, and gender divisions of the world around us. Read leftwing journals, magazines, newspapers, and websites – usually, those writing have not only a college degree, but an advanced degree, or they are even university professors. Actual poor and working class voices are largely missing from existing leftwing literature. Language and concepts used are foreign to many poor and working class people. Sometimes that alone creates destructive tension within an organization or movement. It always makes workers feel, this land is not my land. In truth, movement language and culture often functions like a fence keeping workers to one side, welcoming those who monopolize empowering circumstances to the other side.
Consider the tasks that people perform within existing organizations and movements. Often times, poor and working class people, if involved at all, end up doing most of the disempowering work. They make phone calls, set up rooms for events, clean up after, and so forth, while the people from more empowering backgrounds and circumstances run the cameras, make the speeches, sit on the panels of panel discussions, set the agendas, make the decisions. The empowered come to meetings with confidence, plans, and agendas. The ensuing discussion is determined by what they convey. Someone from the 20% above proposes an idea or project with the expectation that someone from the 80% below will end up doing the rote work to make it happen. For instance, an academically erudite activist comes up with a media strategy, something most poor and working class people might not even be privy to, such as a coordinated social media campaign.
Right away, this causes problems if the person proposing the idea doesn’t realize that many poor people don’t have internet access, hence creating a barrier for participation, or if that person isn’t willing to find ways to accommodate and explain the process to members of the organization or movement that don’t have the same material resources or knowledge. Or more to the point, if the whole process precludes working people gaining the information and confidence to develop and propose their own agendas and plans so that their interests fade while coordinator interests dominate. An even more basic example would be a community organization that’s composed of a wide-range of people from various socio-economic backgrounds. There’s an upcoming fundraiser and the organization needs volunteers to help grill food, hand out literature, welcome guests, and make speeches. Do the poor and working-class members of the organization end up behind the grill, while the more well off members make speeches and meet with donors? These sorts of dynamics create a tone and tenor that repels working class people by process, but also by outcomes.
Let’s say this problem arises in an organization: What next? On the one hand, perhaps we have a hurt member who’s tired of being given menial tasks and who feels isolated from, intimidated by, and subordinate to a more upwardly identified member who gets to always make speeches. Let’s assume the upwardly identified member is simply ignorant of the fact that they’ve neglected to take into account the class dynamics at play. Let’s approach that member with respect and help them understand why someone might be upset about the situation. On the other hand, the member who’s hurt by this dynamic should assume that the upwardly identified member didn’t intentionally hurt them. Yet, the member who is hurt also has every right to feel hurt and more important to seek and even to demand changes that respect those below and elevate them, while respecting those more upwardly identified but also moderating their tendencies to dominate. To address even an oppressive relation first assume good will, but always work to reduce and eliminate the injustice and its causes.
We can extend this dynamic out from inter-organizational dynamics to outward organizational dynamics. For instance, many times community groups are in the thick of it, constantly fighting, organizing, losing and winning. Organizers, for the most part, have little time to write, reflect, and develop ideas about what they are doing, not because they are incapable of doing so, but because they simply don’t have the time, capacity, resources, or headspace. On the contrary, many student groups, academics, middle-class intellectuals and so on, have the time, training, and resources to develop ideas, but may have very few community connections. The community organizations that are largely made up of poor and working-class people might take offense at the suggestions and ideas from their middle-class counterparts, seeing them as privileged individuals who have no connection to ‘the street,’ while their middle-class counterparts may look down on poor and working-class organizers as being anti-intellectual or novices.
Of course, this plays out in unproductive ways as much of the leftwing academic literature is quite detached from the actual organizing practices taking place on the ground, while much of the organizing that takes place on the ground is detached from larger ideas and concepts. The solution is for the big thinkers to get involved, and for the doers to do some more big thinking. Yet for either to happen comprehensively, roles have to change, class hierarchy has to be removed. It isn’t just that those on top become personally more tolerant and that those below become personally more assertive. It is that the basis for a group above and a group below, a division of labor that empowers some and disempowers the rest, has to be dissolved by having new roles that empower everyone, prepare everyone, and incline everyone to conceive, think, debate, and act. And this is of course not only inside our movements, but throughout society.
We have tried to point out some key factors that cause our movements to grow but then decline. We have tried to suggest some methods to overcome those debilitating factors. But our main point is not our specific observations and suggestions. It is that the reasons for repeated movement decline ought to be a central focus of movement thinking and doing so we can develop still better observations and suggestions – so we can gear up, and then not die down.
Collective 20 is a group of writers located in different places throughout the globe. Some young, some older; some long-time organizers and writers, others just getting started, but all equally dedicated to offering analysis, vision, and strategy useful for winning a vastly better society than we currently endure. The members of Collective 20 hope their contributions concerning social, political, economic, and environmental issues will generate more useful content and better outreach through a collective publication effort as opposed to individuals doing so on their own. Collective 20’s cumulative work can be found at collective20.org, where you can learn more about the group, see an archive of its publications, and comment on its work.
Death In The Time Of ‘Development’
by Vidyarthy Chatterjee
In ways more than one, Quarter Number 4/11, a documentary about demolitions and displacements and resultant miseries to a defenseless but defiant working class family, is reminiscent of Anand Patwardhan’s
epic Hamara Shahar, made a quarter century earlier.
Ambedkar’s radical moves beyond Dewey’s pragmatism
Co-Written by Dag-Erik Berg and Torjus Midtgarden
We suggest that Ambedkar’s philosophy and concept development should be made more explicit. In doing so, one may bring an innovative thinker into dialogue with global political thought and strengthen the ontological turn in political theory (Laclau, 2014; Marchart, 2018) if one also brings in caste as his object of study.
Ideological logic around the validity of “Dalit Patriarchy “
by P Victor Vijay Kumar
A debate on "Dalit Patriarcy"
Mob Physically Assaults And Forces Christians To Worship Idol In Uttar Pradesh
by Shibu Thomas
A mob of over 100 religious fanatics attacked a Church at 3pm on the 4th of July 2020 in a village at Dasmada in Azamgarh, a district in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The mob broke into the house that belongs to Senior Pastor Sunita Mourya and beat up the church members that were present there, vandalizing the entire home.
Vikas Dubey Encounter Killing: Time For Serious Action On Police Reforms
by Vidya Bhushan Rawat
It is strange that suddenly a large part of public opinion is speaking of ‘rule of law’ after the killing of terrorist Vikas Dubey. Of course, for many, he was not a terrorist but a petty criminal but then anyone who spread terror, kills innocent people whether with political patronage or without it is a terrorist. However, what is
disturbing is the way he has been killed and police theory is so poorly scripted that any court will trash it to Dustbin.
Mosques, Museums and Politics: The Fate of Hagia Sophia
by Dr Binoy Kampmark
Erdoğan’s concerns lie elsewhere. He has had little truck with ecumenical politics and practises, battering down the secular divides within his country. His agenda is that of an up-ended Attatürk. As Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy remarks, “Just as Attatürk ‘un-mosqued’ Hagia Sophia 86 years ago, and gave it museum status to underline his secularist revolution, Erdoğan is remaking it a mosque to underline his religious revolution.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.