Perpetual economic growth without destroying the planet?

[gorski]

Heh... That is a bit of a mental attitude.

Not at home, so can't reach for the book. However, check out Critical Theory on the issue...

 

[gorski]

Have a look at this: http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/

Fruity: Alfred Sohn-Rethel: "Intellectual and Manual Labour [A critique of epistemology]", 1978, Macmillan Press Ltd.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

From what I understand, economic growth is required for a functioning capitalist economy. Economic 'stability' requires growth under the current systems, and zero growth would actually be a sign of a declining economy.

Yes, I know it's insane, but that's the system we've got.

If you replace the word 'capitalist' with 'debt-based' or 'usurious', you'd be bang on. What do you reckon, weltweit?

Cartoon Time!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Sounds pretty mental to me. Do they offer any historical sources that might back up this rather outlandish claim?

Sounds particularly *sane* to me.

With regard to the relationship of 'money' as an abstraction to the goods themselves, try this:

http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/crusoe.html

From Gesell: 'The Natural Economic Order', 1890.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Have a look at this: http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/

Fruity: Alfred Sohn-Rethel: "Intellectual and Manual Labour [A critique of epistemology]", 1978, Macmillan Press Ltd.

The first part of which can be found online here: http://www.generation-online.org/p/psohnrethel.htm

(Looks interesting, BTW - cheers, gorski).

BTW - the fundamental to Gesells thinking was the need for a sort of 'Tobin Tax' - not just on cross-border currency transactions, but on all money, in the form of 'stamp scrip'.

For historical precedent of how well this idea worked, check out Wörgl. There are other examples.

 

[gorski]

Thanx a bunch, m8!!

 

[gorski]

Yes, this is the idea, that I remembered, when reading some posts:

Sohn Rethel seeks to argue that there is a formal identity between bourgeois epistemology and the social form of exchange in that both involve an abstraction. If he can prove this, he believes he can show that in the abstraction of exchange we can see something like the transcendental subject. By doing this Rethel hopes to show that it is in the historical separation of exchange and use (making much of Marx's distinction between the two in the opening pages of Das Kapital) that grounds the possibility of abstract thought - both in ancient Greek and modern societies. As the origin of the social synthesis, commodity exchanging society conditions the possiblity of all of its thought forms. Exchange is abstract and social in a manner that is contrasted explicitly with the private experience of use. Like Marx, it is this abstract quality secondary social nature of the commodity relation that concerns our author.

Rethel seeks to link the categories of pure reason with the exchange abstract which is increasingly taking the form of a purely mathematical characterisation despite its historical and social origins.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

And trade is war...and despite your theoretical reading of the matter, Jews charged interest to everyone (hence the moneylenders in the temple business...not just turning Gods house into a temple of mammon, but actually ignoring scripture at the same time as well)

As I understand it, they were 'money-changers' tables 'e turned over, not 'lenders'.

Apparently, 'God' up on the hill, there, only accepted certain coinage (no Roman money and certainly not AMEX) so you had to get it changed before you 'paid your tributes', buy purchasing Tyrian coins, or whatever.

Isn't it the only time Jebus is supposed to have lost it and kicked off at anyone?

Quite what the dove sellers had done to require *special mention* I wouldn't want to speculate. Maybe one of them looked at 'im funny.

-

gorski;

As the origin of the social synthesis, commodity exchanging society conditions the possibility of all of its thought forms.

That will be proved absolutely true by the first economist that says that it isn't.

Our interest is confined to the abstraction contained in exchange which we shall find determines the conceptual mode of thinking peculiar to societies based on commodity production. In order to pursue our particular purpose of tracing to its origin the abstraction permeating commodity exchange we slightly modify the starting base of the analysis. Marx begins by distinguishing use-value and exchange-value as the major contrasting aspects of every commodity. We trace these aspects to the different human activities to which they correspond, the actions of use and the action of exchange. The relationship between these two contrasting kinds of activity, use and exchange, is the basis of the contrast and relationship between use-value and exchange-value. The explanation of the abstraction of exchange is contained in this relationship. The point is that use and exchange are not only different and contrasting by description, but are mutually exclusive in time. They must take place separately at different times. This is because exchange serves only a change of ownership, a change that is, in terms of a purely social status of the commodities a! owned property. In order to make this change possible on a basis of negotiated agreement the physical condition of the commodities, their material status, must remain unchanged, or at any fate must he assumed to remain unchanged. Commodity exchange cannot take place as a recognised social institution -unless this separation of exchange from use is stringently observed.

http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpsohnrethel.htm

That's exactly where Gesell stuck his pin in the map. I'll try to get hold of a copy. For less than $70.

Thus the salient feature of the act of exchange is that its separation from use has assumed the compelling necessity of an objective social law. Wherever commodity exchange takes place, it does so in effective 'abstraction' from use. This is an abstraction not in mind, but in fact. It is a state of affairs prevailing at a definite place and lasting a definite time. It is the state of affairs which reigns on the market. There, in the market-place and in shop windows, things stand still. They are under the spell of one activity only; to change owners. They stand there waiting to be sold. While they are there for exchange they are there not for use. A commodity marked out at a definite price, for instance, is looked upon as being frozen to absolute immutability throughout the time during which its price remains unaltered. And the spell does not only bind the doings of` man. Even Nature herself is supposed to abstain from any ravages in the body of` this commodity and to hold her breath, as it were, for the sake of this social business of man. Evidently, even the aspect of non-human nature is affected by the banishment of use from the sphere of exchange.

And you know what he means by 'non-human nature'...

 

[weltweit]

If you replace the word 'capitalist' with 'debt-based' or 'usurious', you'd be bang on. What do you reckon, weltweit?
...

Not sure, not sure I get the relevance of the debt or usury argument.

A lot of growth just has to be inflationary, just look at how house prices (not sure exactly how they are included in the RPI) have doubled over the last 10 years. You do not get any more house for your money but the price for the same house has doubled.

Then salaries, well they have nowhere near doubled over the last 10 years in fact I would very much doubt they have gone up more than 20% in real terms.

So the vastly increased headline annual transaction amount in the housing market suggests "economic growth" but those buying houses are if anything less well off because of the vastly over inflation increase in the price of the same houses.

Growth has apparently ocurred .. but it was in fact just inflation, people are not consuming more, just what they are and always have been consuming has gone up in value.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Not sure, not sure I get the relevance of the debt or usury argument.

Well, allow me to elaborate...

Brainaddict said 'economic growth is required for a functioning capitalist economy' - I suggested that it's more true to say 'economic growth is required for a functioning ururious economy'.

Because all of our 'money' is initially 'lent into existence' via the mechanism of usury, a systemic need for 'growth' is hardwired into the system.

Think about it - if every pound that exists was lent into existence at interest, there can logically never be enough to repay the loan, PLUS the interest. It's a simple equation. Therefore, in order to meet the debt, even MORE money needs to be 'lent into existence' (thus 'inflation' and 'growth').

The cartoon I posted above is a simple 47 minute animation that a lot of people have found very useful in understanding the mechanism of usury and it's relationship to both 'inflation' and 'growth'.

 

[weltweit]

... Brainaddict said 'economic growth is required for a functioning capitalist economy' - I suggested that it's more true to say 'economic growth is required for a functioning ururious economy'.

Because all of our 'money' is initially 'lent into existence' via the mechanism of usury, a systemic need for 'growth' is hardwired into the system.

Think about it - if every pound that exists was lent into existence at interest, there can logically never be enough to repay the loan, PLUS the interest. It's a simple equation. Therefore, in order to meet the debt, even MORE money needs to be 'lent into existence' (thus 'inflation' and 'growth').

Yes I get that argument.

Banks do have that ratio between deposits and loans which creates money lent at interest to borrowers, but that said in the long run loans have to be paid back and the only way we actually get money is to earn it. Money earnt is not subject to interest so while I get your argument I don't really go along with it.

If interest was to be paid on all money in existance then that would certainly be inflationary but money earnt or paid as benefits does not attract interest and it is that money that people have to use to pay back their credit cards and mortgages etc.

Where does money come from? companies make it as the excess of sales value over costs, this money is distributed to employees and shareholders and government and banks as wages or dividends or taxes or interest.

Where does more money come from? banks lend money at interest to people and companies, and or but, this money has to be paid back plus interest.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

But where does it come from initially?

You say that 'companies make it' - well they don't just *magically* conjure it out of thin air. The 'money' a company makes comes from someone, it is already in circulation.

How does it get into circulation?

It's lent into existence (at interest) by a Central Bank - in the US that's the Federal Reserve, in the UK it's the Bank of England.

These 'Central Banks' have the sole rights on creating money in the first place.

That's all money, whether it's earned or paid in benefits.

Some of the circulating money gets deposited at Banks, which is then used as collateral by the Banks to make more loans and 'earn' even more interest - even if that practice ceased, the interest on the money that is levied when it's 'loaned into existence' by the Central Bank means that there can never be enough in the system to repay the debt.

Check out the animation if you get time.

 

[weltweit]

Check out the animation if you get time.

Can't, this computer is so old it has the word "ABACUS" printed on it I don't do animations or I get crashes galore.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

That's a pity, weltweit.

If you do happen to get use of a better machine, google for 'Money as Debt' and you'll find it.

-

Gorski - going back to that thought of Sohn-Rethel;

'As the origin of the social synthesis, commodity exchanging society conditions the possibility of all of its thought forms.'

I was wondering what examples of 'non-commodity exchanging society' we could look at in order to focus more clearly on this hypothesis.

I was reminded of an article on the Piraha tribe in Brazil which seems relevant, albeit slightly tangential:

Living without Numbers or Time

The debate amongst linguists about the absence of all numbers in the Pirahã language broke out after Peter Gordon, a psycholinguist at New York's Columbia University, visited the Pirahãs and tested their mathematical abilities. For example, they were asked to repeat patterns created with between one and 10 small batteries. Or they were to remember whether Gordon had placed three or eight nuts in a can.

The results, published in Science magazine, were astonishing. The Pirahãs simply don't get the concept of numbers. His study, Gordon says, shows that "a people without terms for numbers doesn't develop the ability to determine exact numbers."

His findings have brought new life to a controversial theory by linguist Benjamin Whorf, who died in 1941. Under Whorf's theory, people are only capable of constructing thoughts for which they possess actual words. In other words: Because they have no words for numbers, they can't even begin to understand the concept of numbers and arithmetic.

The article that was published in 'Science' magazine can be read (for free) here.

Here's a fairly good article on The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

 

[weltweit]

[quote='Science' magazine]... Under Whorf's theory, people are only capable of constructing thoughts for which they possess actual words. In other words: Because they have no words for numbers, they can't even begin to understand the concept of numbers and arithmetic. [/quote]

OT:

I remember a thread in here asking "do we think in words" to which the resounding response was i believe NO. But this research would seem to support my suggestion that we do in fact think in words. Therefore a larger vocabulary can mean more sophisticated thought.

But which comes first, the thought or the word?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I'd have to go with the 'thought'.

There wouldn't be much point in a 'word' which had no 'thought' which it was intended to express.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Orwell made the point;

If the language can be subverted in such a way that certain words have their accepted meaning twisted, the thought behind the original meaning can no longer be expressed. The 'thought' still remains, though - it can proceed and exceed the 'word'.

 

[gorski]

Gorski - going back to that thought of Sohn-Rethel;

I was wondering what examples of 'non-commodity exchanging society' we could look at in order to focus more clearly on this hypothesis.

Even if one is not present in our past - it doesn't matter one little bit! We have had History because we are Human, because we are not reducible to the merely existent, because we can not be reduced to the current state of affairs and power relationships, without anything remaining, as it were. Therefore, History will continue!

Capitalism in a Neo-Liberal sense is NOT the only possibility, it is NOT in tune with "Human Nature", so Neo-Cons can not claim we can not possibly go anywhere from here...

As a principle, "At the beginning there was - Future!" as a possible reading of Hegel and co. would have it.

Think about it - how could we have possibly managed to get so far without that part of us? The part they [Cons] are trying to amputate now, restrain, even arrest and petrify? Bollox, I say!

We could most likely do well by looking into mechanism of how surplus value [new value created by our labour] does not become profit...

I'll have a look at your link a bit later - meal time...

 

[gorski]

Orwell made the point;

If the language can be subverted in such a way that certain words have their accepted meaning twisted, the thought behind the original meaning can no longer be expressed. The 'thought' still remains, though - it can proceed and exceed the 'word'.

Indeed, the worries behind today's linguistic poverty, especially the linguistic impoverishment of contemporary kids goes much the same way: reduce the vocabulary and castrate thinking...

They [the kids] more or less pretend "we all want the same thing, think the same thoughts, feel the same feelings, so what's the bleeding point in making an effort?" The cultcha is getting the sub-cultcha way, as it were and is not exactly being "enriched" in the process, one could argue...

As for the primacy question: Plato had a dialogue where it was beautifully argued, on both ends of the argument: Kratylos, maybe? It escapes me for the moment. Have a look, might be fun... I'll check later...

 

[Fruitloop]

Sounds particularly *sane* to me.

With regard to the relationship of 'money' as an abstraction to the goods themselves, try this:

http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/crusoe.html

From Gesell: 'The Natural Economic Order', 1890.

Really? As far as I would be prepared to go is to say that exchange-value has abstract thought as a pre-requisite. Any further seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[gorski]

That's beacuse you're a silly billy of contrarian kind!

Now, would you be so kind so as to back it up, please?

Sohn-Rethel did a lot of work to be so gallantly dismissed out of hand by a prankster...

 

[Fruitloop]

Sure, but I have a feeling you won't like the answer.

Firstly there seem to be two points being advanced: that exchange precedes abstraction in general, which is pretty much self-evidently bollocks and is anyway not what Sohn-Rethel is saying, and his more subtle point that ‘the abstraction contained in exchange … determines the conceptual mode of thinking peculiar to societies based on commodity production’.

First lets dispose of the silly case; it’s obvious that for exchange to be a precondition of abstract thought we can’t be talking about any and all kinds of exchange, since there are plenty of examples of exchanges that don’t require abstraction – exchanges of blows, body fluids, genetic material etc. Exchanges of perishable goods that have a non-linear relationship between the effort expended to get them and the likely reward (the typical example being the spoils of hunting) are also shared in anticipation of future reciprocation by both pre-moneyed societies and animals (where in the same circumstances perishables that have a more linear relationship between effort and reward will be hoarded), for the simple reason that this strategy maximises returns for all interested parties. Personally I would say that this kind of temporal abstraction of use-values is already a kind of intelligent abstraction produced by social activity, albeit a simpler one than abstract exchange-value (particularly since it relies on the existence of individual identity under conditions that allow for multiple occurrences of the opportunity for reciprocation to avoid a kind of ‘prisoners dilemma’), but that’s not critical to my argument.

The only kind of exchange that necessitates abstract thought is the abstraction of exchange itself, i.e. money as units of pure exchange value. Money however is a comparatively recent development in the history of homo sapiens – too recent to have had any impact on any innate cognitive structures such as the language faculties or on the kind of adaptive behaviours displayed by hunter-gatherers described above. Given that intelligence in general and language specifically are inherently abstractive (perhaps only if we found primitive societies whose languages lacked fundamental abstract features like instance-of-a-type relationships then there would be grounds for thinking that linguistic abstraction was enculturated), we can dispose of the general notion that our abstractive capabilities are grounded in exchange.

The stronger case that Sohn-Rethel is advancing (as far as I understand it) is the idea that the modes of abstraction peculiar to a society based on the commodity form have their origins in the commodity abstraction itself. Some bits of S-R’s argument I have no problem with, like his (relatively unoriginal) observations about the division of labour; for example what struck me on looking at Galileo’s experimental equipment which is preserved in Florence was how advanced technologically his society was despite the comparative conceptual simplicity of many of his experiments – particularly in terms of what we would now call materials science etc; quite beautifully crafted instruments were built to test very basic concepts in acceleration etc, and it was continually surprising how a society capable of such sophisticated fabrication had such an elementary grasp of theoretical mechanics - even bearing in mind the Marxian adage that what we make is always ahead of what we think. So to the extent that the division of labour is a characteristic of capitalist society (I still have my doubts as to whether it is a result of exchange per se), it’s unproblematically the case that this division between pure and applied science is reproduced within scientific knowledge and institutions. This isn’t the whole story though; the division of labour within scientific thinking isn’t a static separation, rather it extends the innate human abstractive capabilities by a constant feedback loop from purely conceptual science into the construction of everything from mass spectrometers to particle accelerators, and it’s in this feedback where a confrontation occurs between conceptual knowledge and nature, since conceptual knowledge that was grounded purely in social facts would remain stuck in mode of mere description: instead, just as the commodity traces a circle from the use-value in its creation to exchange value and back to the use-value that the receiving party in the exchange must perceive in it for the exchange to take place, so the substance of scientific knowledge has to return to the tekne or predictive capability from which the pure concept arose.

 

[gorski]

Must write the MA assignments so have little time now...

1) we can dispose of the general notion that our abstractive capabilities are grounded in exchange.

2) The stronger case that Sohn-Rethel is advancing (as far as I understand it) is the idea that the modes of abstraction peculiar to a society based on the commodity form have their origins in the commodity abstraction itself. Some bits of S-R’s argument I have no problem with, like his (relatively unoriginal) observations about the division of labour; for example what struck me on looking at Galileo’s experimental equipment which is preserved in Florence was how advanced technologically his society was despite the comparative conceptual simplicity of many of his experiments – particularly in terms of what we would now call materials science etc; quite beautifully crafted instruments were built to test very basic concepts in acceleration etc, and it was continually surprising how a society capable of such sophisticated fabrication had such an elementary grasp of theoretical mechanics -

3) even bearing in mind the Marxian adage that what we make is always ahead of what we think.

4) So to the extent that the division of labour is a characteristic of capitalist society (I still have my doubts as to whether it is a result of exchange per se), it’s unproblematically the case that this division between pure and applied science is reproduced within scientific knowledge and institutions.

5) This isn’t the whole story though; the division of labour within scientific thinking isn’t a static separation, rather it extends the innate human abstractive capabilities by a constant feedback loop from purely conceptual science into the construction of everything from mass spectrometers to particle accelerators,

6) and it’s in this feedback where a confrontation occurs between conceptual knowledge and nature, since conceptual knowledge that was grounded purely in social facts would remain stuck in mode of mere description: instead, just as the commodity traces a circle from the use-value in its creation to exchange value and back to the use-value that the receiving party in the exchange must perceive in it for the exchange to take place, so the substance of scientific knowledge has to return to the tekne or predictive capability from which the pure concept arose.

1) Maybe a bit too quick? Especially if you think that a forethought is possible before the exchange takes place? If I understood you correctly.

2) You forgot the power relationships of the time. They were struggling to get the things moving, as it were, against the church dogma - in Philosophy, Science, Art... especially expressing and disseminating it! Actually, it seems they have done a great job, under the circumstances, and some of them even paid for it with their lives...

3) Socialism first started in some heads... So, not so, sorry... And your point in 1) also seems to suggest this possibility.

4) "Pure" and "applied" ["dirty" ] science? Hmmm... Anyway...

Division of labour in manufactures was brought in by the idea of exchange, competition and efficiency. They, then, started creating a new society, from within the medieval free cities, which were outside the pillar relationship of Feudalism, via a new market, new needs, new societal and economic relations, which brought down Feudalism, bit by bit. Powerful stuff. That brought with it the new "abstraction" of a Human Being as such, not as a member of a clan, Feud, Estate, clergy etc. - to whom the Universal Rights and dignity would be applied. Something even Aristotle's genius has serious difficulties, when comparing slave's and free Greek's labour, as an embodiment of time spent creating a new [strictly speaking] value. The labour for labour universality loomed deadly over the inequality of Feudalism!

5) They are innate, indeed - but only potentially. They have to be triggered [early!] and worked on via constant relationships with other Human Beings, Nature and ourselves - else we never reach our potential, our potential "Human Nature"...

6) Yes, if I understood you correctly, what kind of dialectics are we talking about here, indeed?

Interesting stuff!

[Sorry, must work... Will be back on Friday, I think... ]

 

[Fruitloop]

3) That's not a Marxian viewpoint though is it? - "The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class". Not that he was necessarily right about that....

4) When we start out we are only potentially anything surely? And also potentially nothing. It's the unfolding of our nature in time that is its real existence not just the facts at a particular point.

This is making me sound like much more of an orthodox dialectician than I am!

 

[gorski]

3) Indeed, he wasn't. Slavery was not brought down by slaves and Feudalism by serfs/peasants.

By 4) you actually mean 5), don't you?

If that is what you are addressing - then I am not sure what you are saying here, in relation to the point I raise... Please, explain.

Cheers!