truthdig | “One of the
issues here is when those in authority, whether political, academic or
civic, are expounding their doctrines through Enlightenment idioms and
we must ask, is this being done in good faith?” he said. “And here I
think the genuine insight provided by the economics of opportunism is
that we cannot assume it is being done in good faith.”
“When I hear Republicans in the United States say that taking away
people’s food stamps will do them good I ask, what do you know that
allows you to say this? This rhetoric invokes the Enlightenment model.
We all use it. It is improvement by means of reason. But Enlightenment
discourse should not be taken at face value. We have to again ask
whether it is being carried out in good faith.”
“Economics, political science and even philosophy, ever since
rational choice swept through the American social sciences, have
embraced the idea that an individual has no responsibility towards
anyone except himself or herself,” he said. “A responsibility to anyone
else is optional. The public discourse, for this reason, has become a
hall of mirrors. Nothing anymore is what it seems to be.”
Our current economic model, he said, will be of little use to us in
an age of ecological deterioration and growing scarcities. Energy
shortages, global warming, population increases and increasing scarcity
of water and food create an urgent need for new models of distribution.
Our two options, he said, will be “hanging together or falling apart.”
Offer argues that we cannot be certain that growth will continue. If
standards of living stagnate or decline, he said, we must consider other
models for the economy. Given the wealth and resources of
industrialized nations, he said, a drop in living standards to what they
were one or two generations ago would still permit a good quality of
life.
Offer has studied closely the economies of World War I. Amid this
catastrophe, he notes, civilian economies adapted. He holds up these war
economies, with their heavy rationing, as a possible model for
collective action in a contracting economy.
“What you had was a very sudden transition to a serious scarcity
economy that was underpinned by the necessity for sharing,” he said.
“Ordinary people were required to sacrifice their lives. They needed
some guarantee for those they left at home. These war economies were
relatively egalitarian. These economics were based on the safety net
principle. If continued growth in the medium run is not feasible, and
that is a contingency we need to think about, then these rationing
societies provide quite a successful model. On the Allied side, people
did not starve, society held together.”
However, if we cling to our current economic model—which Offer labels
“every man for himself”—then, he said, “it will require serious
repression.”
“There is not a free market solution to a peaceful decline,” he said.
“The state of current political economy in the West is similar to the
state of communism in the Soviet Union around 1970,” he went on. “It is
studied widely in the university. Everyone knows the formula. Everyone
mouths it in discourse. But no one believes it.” The gap between the
model and reality is now vast. Those in power seek “to bring reality
into alignment with the model, and that usually involves coercion.”
“The amount of violence that is inflicted is an indicator of how well
the model is aligned with reality,” he said. “That doesn’t mean
imminent collapse. Incorrect models can endure for long periods of time.
The Soviet model shows this.”
Violence, however, is ultimately an inefficient form of control.
Consent, he said, is a more effective form of social control. He argued,
citing John Kenneth Galbraith,
that in affluent societies the relative contentment of the majorities
has permitted, through free market ideology, the abandonment,
impoverishment and repression of minorities, especially
African-Americans. As larger and larger segments of society are forced
because of declining economies to become outsiders, the use of coercion,
under our current model, will probably become more widespread.
0 comments:
Post a Comment