Nina Montgomery — Does capitalism need a radical redesign to become more inclusive?

Earlier this year, I worked on two books—featuring insights from 40 executives—exploring corporate purpose and impact. A clear theme emerged: To ensure that new capitalism doesn’t look a lot like old capitalism, we need more than just good intentions. We need a radical redesign of business at the structural level. Here are three big design questions that I encourage all leaders to ask themselves if they’re serious about inclusive capitalism:

I don't think that use of highly abstract terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" are helpful without careful definition that involves articulation of the fundamentals of social, political and economic systems, in particular in relation to contemporary living and emergent opportunities/challenges.

This is about revisiting the design of a life-support system that developed organically but not naturally in the sense of not being influenced by human intervention.

Assumption that "natural laws" comparable to natural systems studied by the natural science also govern complex adaptive systems has not played well so far, especially in the case of social systems and the social systems, including economics.

The organic approach has not worked out satisfactorily either, as humanity now faces several existential crises of its own making — climate change, epidemics and technological poisoning, and nuclear winter.

There are three major issues to face. The first is analyzing the design problem correctly, the second is developing a satisfactory solution, and the third is scaling it up. This latter involves two major issues, the first being technological, scaling at this level is a huge challenge, and the second being political, getting global concerted action from governments of nations with diverse interests has been elusive.

Fast Company

Does capitalism need a radical redesign to become more inclusive?
Nina Montgomery, designer at IDEO and a PhD candidate at the University of Oxford where she studies business and systems change

Neoliberalism Tells Us We’re Selfish Souls – How Can We Promote Other Identities? — Christine Berry

At the simplest level, "it's the incentives, stupid."

And incentives reflect underlying values and value structure that shape interests and the their pursuit.

Foundationally, it about the level of collective consciousness. Want to change social behavior for the "better"? Raise the level of collective consciousness. But what are the criteria of "better"? How can they be determined – instrumentally by outcomes, deontologically on the basis of universally applicable rules), virtue based on character, or simply constructed institutionally through the historical dialectic, or some combination thereof? How would a combination be arrived at – theoretically, practically, or through emergence? How objective can a conclusion regarding this be?

The current dialectic between "capitalism" and "socialism" is about individuality versus community. This leads to various paradoxes of liberalism, such as freedom versus responsibility, individual liberty versus social order, homo economicus versus homo socialis.

This is reflected in part in the current dialectic between liberalism and traditionalism that dominates the world stage now that fascism and communism have more or less taken a back seat but not disappeared either, with nationalism and populism rising, and China still a communist country even though no longer Maoist.

Each of these political systems and theories on which they are based contains a kernel of truth. The challenge is harmonizing them in terms what is valuable while losing what is not, especially when what is not dominates.

This is not something that is going to be figured out intellectually and then imposed. It is going to develop organically on the field of history, where the future is uncertain. It is subject to emergence since societies are complex adaptive system. However, the unfolding of history is also path-dependent and constrained by "endowments."

Open Democracy
Neoliberalism Tells Us We’re Selfish Souls – How Can We Promote Other Identities?
Christine Berry, freelance researcher and writer was previously Director of Policy and Government for the New Economics Foundation

ht Lambert Strether at Naked Capitalism.

Caitlin Johnstone — Things Are Only Going To Get Weirder

I often hear people in my line of work saying “Man, we’re going to look back on all this crazy shit and think about how absolutely weird it was! 

No we won’t. Because it’s only going to get weirder.

It’s only going to get weirder, because that’s what it looks like when old patterns start to fall away.

The human mind is conditioned to look for patterns in order to establish a baseline of normal expectations upon which to plan out future actions. This perceptual framework exists to give us safety and security, so disruptions in the patterns upon which it is based often feel weird, threatening, and scary. They make us feel insecure, because our cognitive tool for staying in control of our wellbeing has a glitch in it.

When you’re talking about a species that has been consistently patterned towards its own destruction, though, a disruption of patterns is a good thing....

Caitlin Johnstone — Rogue Journalist
Things Are Only Going To Get Weirder
Caitlin Johnstone

Robert Paul Wolff — "The Future of Socialism" (article)

I  (Tom Hickey) recommend reading this paper now that "socialism" is the new buzz word. You may recall Professor Wolff from The Poverty of Liberalism, In Defense of Anarchy, and A Critique of Pure Tolerance (with Herbert Marcuse and Barrington Moore, Jr.), which were popular at the time of the "countercultural revolution" in the Sixties and Seventies. He also published scholarly works on Emmanuel Kant and Karl Marx. He blogs at The Philosopher's Stone, which I follow and occasionally offer comment.

In what follows, I propose to take as my text a famous statement from Marx’s A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy—a sort of preliminary sketch of Das Kapital—and see what it can tell us about the capitalism of our day. I shall try to show you that Marx was fundamentally right about the direction in which capitalism would devel- op, but that because of his failure to anticipate three important features of the mature capitalist world, his optimism concerning the outcome of that development was misplaced. Along the way, I shall take a fruitful detour through the arid desert of financial accounting theory.

Here is the famous passage, from the preface of the Contribution, published in 1859:

"No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed, and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society."

"The Future of Socialism"
Robert Paul Wolff | Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Published in Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 35:1403-1428]

Phil Hoad — TV's new lesbian Batwoman joins growing numbers of diversity-friendly superheroes

Batwoman and Dreamer join a recent spate of comic book adaptations for cinema and television that has wised up to the fact that today’s most culturally dominant genre has to mirror modern society better. In February, Marvel’s Black Panther film became a landmark event. It was the US’s third highest-grossing film, not only breaking a ceiling for black cinema, but riding on the back of a nuanced understanding of African-American history to become the series’ best yet.

Pop art as leading indicator of cultural change. Pop art follows the money, unlike fine art as "art for arts sake." Economic liberalism in this case is interacting with social liberalism to produce rapid change. This is concerning to many traditionalists, who see the the world as they see it threatened. This is an aspect of the historical dialectic at work.

World Economic Forum
TV's new lesbian Batwoman joins growing numbers of diversity-friendly superheroes

Phil Hoad

Joseph Hickey — How Societies Form and Change

You might find this of interest. As a bonus, it explains some fundamental principles of mathematical modeling.

Hierarchy appears to be an inescapable feature of animal, including human, societies. There are dominants and subordinates, bosses and employees, rulers and subjects, and an individual’s position in the social hierarchy to a large degree determines fundamental aspects of his or her life, including one’s health, access to resources, and influence in society. From the individual’s point of view, the hierarchy provides security, but also reduces one’s freedom. What determines how oppressive society is toward the individual? Would more freedom be better for society? How bad does societal inequality have to become before things start getting better? Are there any fundamental laws or rules that control how social hierarchy forms and evolves in a complex society of many interacting individuals and groups?

I am doing my PhD research in physics on these questions. Something I’m often asked is how can the study of social hierarchy be considered “physics”? The answer is “simple” – physicists try to construct simple models to reveal essential or underlying features of complex natural phenomena. Such a model has to be as simple as possible, yet it must be cleverly constructed so that, in its simplicity, the model captures essential features of reality. If this is achieved, the model can provide insights about underlying rules that may control or influence the real phenomenon.

I have constructed a simple physics model of the formation and evolution of social hierarchies, based on interactions between the individual members of the society. Computer simulations of the model produce societies that resemble real-world societies, and we can study how the simulated societies are formed and how they change in time. A scientific article presenting the model has been submitted to a journal and can be read online at ResearchGate.1 In the following, I outline how the model works for a general (non-specialist) reader and briefly discuss what its results might mean in terms of understanding social hierarchy in the real world.

Dissident Voice
How Societies Form and Change
Joseph Hickey | Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association(OCLA)

Peter Dorman — The Great Awokening

I beg to differ with the usually astute Peter Dorman on this one. I also differ with Marx on it.

Peter Dorman takes the liberal position that politics, which is concerned with power, is determinative. Marx posits that it is the economic and financial infrastructure that is determinative.

Against such views, traditionalism holds that consciousness is determinative.

While everyone agrees that change is complex and its quality, direction, and speed depends on many factors, some see certain factors are more determinative than others.

That is to say, all these views and there are others, too, are partially correct and therefore are relevant.

From the point of view of the "consciousness first" position, the question really can be reduced to the interplay of "consciousness" in so far as it determines the mindset of a group and culture and institutions that manifest the systemic structure and functioning of a group.

While culture and institutions certainly influence the systemic structure and functioning of groups, cultures and institutions are themselves manifestations of mindsets, both individual and collective. Thus, the "great person" (usually "great man") theory is partially true, and so is the social construction theory.

Humans are both shaped by their environment and also shape it. Unlike other highly intelligent animals, humans can and do shape events and environments consciously and intentionally based on "human capital," e.g., knowledge, skill, creativity, reflexivity, ability to cooperate, etc.

"Human capital" can also be managed consciously and intentionally. It can improve, or remain relatively constant over an extended period, or degrade. While "consciousness" is an impossible metric to measure directly, at least at present, it's effects can be measured in terms of individual and social characteristics and contributions.

Traditionalisms are now warning that humanity requires a "spiritual awakening" or "spiritual renewal" in order to meet the emerging challenges brought along with seizing extraordinary opportunities made possible by scientific discovery and technological innovation.

Traditionalisms warn that we are getting ahead of ourselves in the ability to control the genie we have let out of the bottle, and now we need to step back and reassess what we are facing rather than lurching headlong into dangerous territory. 

The growing possibility of nuclear conflict, geographical and demographic changes resulting from global warming, and the threat of epidemic are stark realities, while increasing social dysfunctioning that implies widespread individual dysfunctioning is becoming pervasive and homelessness is being normalized.

These are not only social, political and economic problems and challenges but they are also indicative of a spiritual malaise and a growing disconnect from the holistic unfolding of human potential. One-sided development calls forth a dialectical response in reaction. Herbert Marcuse addressed this back in the Sixties in his One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (Beacon, 1964)

Perennial wisdom provides guidelines, but knowledge in the book stays in the book until it is owned in consciousness and acted on. Humans are capable of visualizing an ideal but they must act on it to progressively actualize their ideal.

Achieving ideal society is not necessarily utopian. It involves progressively increasing positivity and decreasing negativity. Everyone also already seek to do this for themselves and their near and dear, although they differ in what constitutes positive and negative.

Expansion of collective consciousness requires transcending individualism and tribalism in the direction of apprehending the universal and acting in terms of it rather than narrow self-interest or the interest of one's limited in-group. 

This requires going against an evolutionary trait that encourages self-interest and favoring one's in-group. However, the history of humanity is the story of growing universality, and indeed, it can be equated with becoming "truly human."

How does a "spiritual awakening" start? It starts with individuals. Get out of your head and into your heart.

Econospeak
The Great Awokening
Peter Dorman | Professor of Political Economy, The Evergreen State College

Duncan Green — Book Review: The Road to Somewhere, by David Goodhart

Populism versus elitism in the UK, with implications for elsewhere. Links to other reviews at the end.

It's anecdotal rather than based on sociological and poli sci studies, but it's worth a look anyway.

There are parallels in other countries and not necessarily close ones since the differences are large.

For example, the liberal Western elite projects its values not only on fellow countrymen, which is turning out to be disproven at the polls, but other countries with very different cultures. The result is wishful thinking if not magical thinking that has little correlation with reality.

Liberalism is crumbling owing to its internal contradications — paradoxes of liberalism — emerging in the bastions of liberalism like the UK and US.

The liberal elite doesn't know how to handle this and is flailing about to maintain control.

From Poverty to Power
Book Review: The Road to Somewhere, by David Goodhart
Duncan Green

Bill Mitchell — Resistance and change doesn’t come from going along with the (neo-liberal) pack

I get a lot of E-mails that accuse me of being politically naive. The accusations were rekindled by yesterday’s blog – British labour lost in a neo-liberal haze. I imagine if I wrote a blog where I outlined support for Marine Le Pen in the context of a two-way fight against the worse-of-the-worst neo-liberals Emmanuel Macron the accusations would turn uglier even. My support for Brexit was met with similar hostility from a range of (self-styled) ‘progressives’ as being naive and offensive. Why, Brexit was a conservative plot wasn’t it? How could I have missed that? Progressives are now advocating votes for Macron even though they know he is an archetype neo-liberal – the anathema of what they believe. And they tell me every day in these E-mail tirades and other blogs that I should give people like Jeremy Corbyn some slack because he knows better than me that to advocate a major departure from the neo-liberal macroeconomic narrative would be political suicide. So why don’t I just shut up and recognise that politics is beyond my grasp and I should desist. Basically that is the message I get regularly. Well, I am sorry to say, such views completely misunderstand the role of an academic and the way in which resistance is constructed....

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Resistance and change doesn’t come from going along with the (neo-liberal) pack
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Steven Watson — Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) does not change things in an instant

A new face on the block.

About strategy. Important.

Steven Watson — Education Research, mathematics education, professional learning, education economics, policy and politics.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) does not change things in an instant
Steven Watson | Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge

Duncan Green — A 3-fold theory of social change (and some great quotes on complexity, ambiguity and dreaming)

Sometimes a paper is worth blogging about just for the quotes. Here are the best from a 2016 update of Doug Reeler’s ‘A Three-Fold Theory of Social Change’:

From Poverty to Power
A 3-fold theory of social change (and some great quotes on complexity, ambiguity and dreaming)
Duncan Green

Wolfgang Streeck: the German economist calling time on capitalism

Streeck adds another voice to Stauss & Howe, and Ravi Batra.

It would be a mistake to see the current dissatisfaction of the 99% as only inequality of income and wealth, which the high earners and people high net worth write off to envy, as much as inequality of opportunity and the rise of unearned privilege that recalls the feudal era. 

Streeck believes that this is explosive and the people in charge are clueless not only about what to do about it, other than social repression, but are clueless about what is happening. As the scenario unfolds, they are in deep psychological denial and intellectually paralyzed.

The Guardian
Wolfgang Streeck: the German economist calling time on capitalism

Aditya Chakrabortty, senior economics commentator for the Guardian

Pachacutec — Does Bernie Sanders Know What He’s Doing?

Bernie understands activism firsthand.

Yes, I’d say Sanders has a very clear, and historically grounded “theory of change.” What those who question it’s validity are really saying is either: 1) they lack imagination and can’t’ see beyond the status quo; 2) they lack knowledge of history, including American history, or; 3) they understand Sanders’ “theory of change” very well and want to choke it in the crib as quickly as they can.

They may succeed. Elites may beat Sanders himself but they will not beat the movement he’s invigorating but did not create. However, saying Sanders may fail is not the same as saying he doesn’t know what he’s doing, or that what he’s setting out to accomplish is impossible.

Because, if history shows us anything, it is, indeed, possible.

Ian Welsh
Does Bernie Sanders Know What He’s Doing?
Pachacutec

David Fields — The Mission of Radical Political Economy

Heavy on the jargon of the Left, but an important point about "consciousness-raising" in socio-economic change through social and political activism.

Naked Keynesianism
The Mission of Radical Political Economy
David Fields

Peter Cooper — MMT is a Good Bet For Progressives and the Left

There has been discussion in the economic blogosphere recently, from a left perspective, about the merits or otherwise of employing an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in debates over policy and efforts to transform the economic system. There is an interesting post, for example, by Dan at Pruning Shears (h/t Tom Hickey) suggesting that MMT might be a “dicey bet for liberals”. In reading this and similar arguments presented elsewhere, I find myself agreeing on some (though certainly not all) points, but differing in the conclusion to be drawn from them.

heteconomist

MMT is a Good Bet For Progressives and the Left

Peter Cooper

Mark Engler and Paul Engle — Would Saul Alinsky Break His Own 'Rules' For Social Change Today?

Modern activists believe that Alinsky focused on building organizations and not social movements. But the author's own political work shows a more flexible approach.

AlterNet

Would Saul Alinsky Break His Own 'Rules' For Social Change Today?
Mark Engler and Paul Engler, Waging Nonviolence

Ian Welsh — Our Choices

I comment here.

Our Choices
Ian Welsh

Dave Schuler — Why Are the People Here So Docile?

Finally, my study of revolutions suggests that the poor never rebel. The Glorious Revolution in England, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese Revolutions of 1911 and 1949 were all launched by one group of elites against another group of elites. The general rule is that educated, urban elites foment revolution against agrarian elites who depend on the ownership of land for their wealth.

Here in the United States our own elites benefit mightily from the system as it is. They like the way things are.

Glittering Eye
Why Are the People Here So Docile?
Dave Schuler

Ian Welsh — The problem of resistance to the oligarchy

Ian nails it. Boils down to power.

The problem of resistance to the oligarchy

Ian Welsh

See also Washington's Blog, When Did America Turn Into the Soviet Union? on whistleblower Bill Binney, and 500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

Unfortunately, Washington's Blog can't distinguish between fascism and socialism. They come up with some good references but a a lot of out of paradigm stuff is mixed in.

New Statesman — Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”

But before we change the world, we need to change the way we think....

For me the solution has to be primarily spiritual and secondarily political. This, too, is difficult terrain when the natural tribal leaders of the left are atheists, when Marxism is inveterately Godless. When the lumbering monotheistic faiths have given us millennia of grief for a handful of prayers and some sparkly rituals.

By spiritual I mean the acknowledgement that our connection to one another and the planet must be prioritised. Buckminster Fuller outlines what ought be our collective objectives succinctly: “to make the world work for 100 per cent of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous co-operation without ecological offence or the disadvantage of anyone”. This maxim is the very essence of “easier said than done” as it implies the dismantling of our entire socio-economic machinery. By teatime....

We now must live in reality, inner and outer. Consciousness itself must change. My optimism comes entirely from the knowledge that this total social shift is actually the shared responsibility of six billion individuals who ultimately have the same interests. Self-preservation and the survival of the planet. This is a better idea than the sustenance of an elite. The Indian teacher Yogananda said: “It doesn’t matter if a cave has been in darkness for 10,000 years or half an hour, once you light a match it is illuminated.”...

To genuinely make a difference, we must become different; make the tiny, longitudinal shift. Meditate, direct our love indiscriminately and our condemnation exclusively at those with power. Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster. We should include everyone, judging no one, without harming anyone. The Agricultural Revolution took thousands of years, the Industrial Revolution took hundreds of years, the Technological Revolution took tens, the Spiritual Revolution has come and we have only an instant to act....

The revolution of consciousness is a decision, decisions take a moment. In my mind the revolution has already begun.

New Statesman
Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”

Russell Brand

This transported me back to the Sixties and Seventies. Russell Brand is the new Abbie Hofmann and Jerry Rubin and "Emmet Grogin" rolled into one, with a sprinkle of Paul Krassner and a dollop of Hunter Thompson. Throw in a touch of Bucky Fuller, and some Wavy Gravy rapping on LSD. Oh, and some Allen Ginsburg, too. This guy is goin' places. Will he be a successor of dearly departed George Carlin?

If you haven't seen this interview yet:

4,212,694

NEWSNIGHT: Paxman vs Brand - full interview