Now available: Cohesion Instead of Integration – Shifting Borders and the Role of Communications

A new publication is now available from Nova Publishers:

Cohesion Instead of Integration – Shifting Borders and the Role of Communications

(see also: 班戈学院Herrmann教授参与编撰的新书正式出版)

Abstract

The chapter presents some theoretical and methodological considerations regarding communication. The fundamental question is if – and if so, to what extent – communication is playing a new role in today’s societies, where borders have shifted in multiple ways. The aim is to provoke reflection on the multitude of shifting borders, incompletely captured by the concept of globalisation. Furthermore, some ideas will be developed towards the role of communication in overcoming the tensions that accompany globalisation. A guideline for achieving multilevel integration as line of reference will be made including a short presentation of the theory of social quality.

It is published in the book:

Eds.: Lu Zhouxiang and Peter Herrmann;  New York: Nova, 2016
Book Description: 
Focusing on the themes of conflict, communication, and globalisation, this book provides interdisciplinary studies of modern and contemporary Asia and highlights the latest developments in Asian Studies. Beginning with a discussion on the role of communications, the book offers theoretical and methodological considerations on dealing with conflict and communication. It then explores self–other relationships through an investigation of the ethical structure of responsibility in the context of globalisation. In the following chapters, contributors from China, Germany, Ireland, Japan and South Korea provide a clear grasp of conflicts and communications within and beyond Asia from political, economic and cultural perspectives. They offer insight on a wide range of topics including the Sino-Japanese conflict, the political and ideological struggles between the two Koreas, Asian countries’ responses to the economic crisis, the World Fair and globalisation, the development of NBA culture in China, and Sino-Western comparison on mother-in-law–daughter-in-law dynamic. The book concludes that Asia’s rise should present more opportunities than conflicts and threats, and that it will eventually lead to the emergence of a multipolar world. (Imprint: Nova)

Off to class …

… the same dingdong …, teaching economics. Funnily enough (well, not really funny at all) the schedule should start with an “Introduction into Economics” – after learning English during the first year. No propaedeutics in the true meaning of introducing into academic thinking.

Still, looking at the requirements and standards sent from the British “mother university”, there seems to be some change. Work should now follow the CORE Project, i.e. the Curriculum in Open-Access Resources in Economics, elaborated by the Institute for New Economic Thinking. At first glance, the idea is surely laudable – as the website advertises:

Teaching economics as if the last three decades had happened.

Still, looking closely at the proposal there are some flaws. For instance from a heterodox perspective, as we brought forward by the World Economics Association, the following is contended:

The CORE project in particular seems to neglect to teach:
• that economics can be defined in different ways;

• that an economic problem can be looked at from different theoretical perspectives;
• that economists constructively disagree;
• that economists can be in error;
• that economic ideas can be dangerous if uncontested; and
• that there is more to teaching economics in a historical context than simply a narrative and some data.
 And part of the story is that “teaching economics as if the last three decades had happened” has to consider from where exactly the economy and economic developed and not least it requires
Teaching economics as if there is a future that can be shaped and will be shaped by and for people

Admittedly high aspirations. And paradoxically they are going well hand in hand with the “Keynesian plea for modesty” laid down in the “Essays“:

‘But, chiefly, do not let us overestimate the importance of the economic problem, or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance. It should be a matter for specialists—like dentistry. If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists, that would be splendid!’

(Keynes, J., 1932: Essays in Persuasion; New York: Harcourt Brace: 373)

Well, that is what I am trying to follow – beginning by … coming to the core of academic education: propaedeutics, dealing with the questions of meaning. And not least, aiming on teaching that we – as economists – may do something for the set of teeth, but the biting takes place outside of the setting of the surgery.

old stuff …, and the summit …

Sure, it would be worthwhile to post some photos now (yes, these meetings have their most enjoyable beauty – watch from ca minute 5:32), (though I remember a more exciting performance I visited some years back, Tan Dun was the head behind some “organic compositions“) or the first reports from the Hangzhou-meetings …,

But it is usually clear in advance what happens – and critique was raised earlier.

And anyway, something  else comes to mind .. and came to my mind these two days. It is so often that we talk about these big institutions, and is so often that we talk about checks and balances …, and indeed, I would not be as optimist as others when it comes to the diminishing power of the IMF … there are surely these centers of power, machine like, making individuals functioning like cogwheels (and earning pretty well by doing so). And even the big shots are very much only representatives. Or as we read in the Economic Manuscripts.

… here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them.

Still, we should not forget that the power is not least with real people. Sure, there are networks, there are academics involved and there are even spaces for open debate .. but at the end it is a small number of of people who control all this. Obvious in the economy and in politics.

And there is in exactly this context something else that is interesting – and that is easily forgotten. Yes, there is all this hype about technologies, gadgets and the control by algorithms. And although we know that the control is “owned”, that there are real people making money out of it, we easily forget this over the fear, thinking about a data-octopus, being uncontrolled and gathering all the data, data then controlling themselves …, and us, selling friends. Yes,

Facebook sells your friends

And although the article is already from 2016, and thus many things changed, it is still worth reading, nicely showing the actual faces of the authors of Facebook … – or should I write: the faces of the actual authors of Facebook.

Yes, all these algorithms have authors, as much as all these political institutions have heads with faces and brains ….es, with complex networks, protecting their ambitions:

Even as Apple became the nation’s most profitable technology company, it avoided billions in taxes in the United States and around the world through a web of subsidiaries so complex it spanned continents and went beyond anything most experts had ever seen, Congressional investigators disclosed on Monday.

… but that is not least something for tomorrow, back in the classroom … (as it was for yesterday)

 

PS: Yes, and not only Merkel made a photo with her mobile — though I am not sure if it was posted on FB 😉

Myths

Myths — looking at the debt-crisis and the question of reparations in the context of Greece is surely important in terms of the pure and immediate calculation – it had been an issue that had been frequently brought forward in the recent months in connection with the “Greek case” which is more a “German case” or a case of the European hegemonic power centres. However, doing so should also go beyond the crude equation, i.e. the amount of money Germany owes.

A historically wider perspective may remind us that this “deal”, stroke in London (London Agreement on German External Debt) in 1953, was part of a complex strategy. This agreement can be seen as foundation of the German politico-economic success, that makes it today a superpower again.

And looking at “Mutti Merkel” we should never forget the small step of the Germans, emerging from the

Volk der Dichter und Denker

(People of poets and thinkers)

to the

Volk of Richter and Henker

(People of judges and hangmen).

An instructive documentation is provided in the film

Die Lüge vom Wirtschaftswunder

Sure, in about 43 minutes there may be some contestable details, or there may be a lack of details as missing statistics etc.- so the complains of some commentators. However, looking today at history, we should think more about the wrong evidence, permanently distributed in the spirit of the well-known fact that history is always written as history of the ruling classes. – This film obviously unveils more truth in the short time than the history books of the 67 years.

Questions, not only asked when writing about Bärlach, Gastmann and Tschanz (German film – German Audiobook).

Top

  • but top of what? in which way?
  • top – the top people, world leaders meeting in Hangzhou?
  • top – the sheer audacity, ignorance and injustice?
  • top – as matter of separating issues, discussing at most single issues?
  • top – as matter of education, research … – all the excellence-centres, defined by extreme specialisation, which is result of division of labour and results in further division of labour?

Being modest, not talking about any top but the bits and pieces, and looking at them scattered … – and scattering may be another issue. So, off we go:

I

the apple scandal – it is the story of humankind in Christianity … – the general appeal to modesty and austereness as which it may be interpreted, was suggested to be a guiding line, guided by responsibility. And as said: claimed to be general. And many now the story of the first incidence: the rejection of the rule, and the punishment that followed.

But it seems that in the Apple-story today (see also here) things have turned around: apples made themselves to gods, not being eaten but eating … And to remain in the metaphor, it is remarkable how the US-multinational-Apple makes the Irish-snake to its priest, collecting the obulus from the people. In which way ever, and even considering the laudable EU-judgment against tax evasion, the real problem is that superpowers today are the representatives of a system that once stood up against the feudal system – then progressive in their claim for liberty, now being oppressors of any kind of freedom, clandestinely selling our friends. A more or less small thing  if it would not solve the entire problem, it surely would avoid much of its emergence: Big enterprises, paying taxes, not “fair taxes”, but according to what they owe, would surely help – a point I recently ventilated elsewhere.

II

Another splinter: the same Commission that calls “against” (really against????) Ireland to act against tax evasion as it sees unfair competition, sets up a programme that is similar to the Irish on a mich larger scale:

Commission proposes €5.3 million from Globalisation Fund for former Microsoft workers in Finland

Doesn’t that propose exactly the same, factually proposing you make the profits as long as toucan make the profits …, and then you leave a desert behind, turn the back to a Dantesque calamity, leaving the clearing of the place to others?

Trinity …

The third point then … bits and pieces … – splinters … shivers making us shivering …

 

Apple, Microsoft, and the summiters … they may let us ask how they managed. It had been said in Genesis 3

For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened,

So far so good, but then the story continues

they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

This is what todays summiters do not face: they see themselves beautifully dressed, not hiding between trees but on the contrary: exposing their wealth which they gained by standing on the shoulders of dwarfs …. . dwarfs as long as they believe that it had been the snake, and then the women … . As long as they did not really come to terms with the fact that

There are no supreme saviors,
Neither God, nor Caesar nor tribune;
Producers, let us save ourselves,
We decree common salvation!
So that the thief should offer us his throat
So that spirit be wrested from its cell,
Let us fan the forge’s flames ourselves
And strike while the iron is hot.

Well, there is indeed an easy answer to the question

Why the study of transnational companies should be part of the economics curriculum

It is noted — starting then next week again – trying to educate for building the right normalcy, instead of asking for restoration of one that may well be overcome.

=== PS, Having talked about the top, there is something that deserves as well attention – I read the day after having posted the entry:

The decline in unionization is strongly associated with the rise of income shares at the top.

Mitschnitte des Seminars zur “Einführung in die Wirtschaftswissenschaften” auf der attac Sommerakademie

Ein (unbearbeiteter) Audio-Mitschnitt des dreiteiligen Seminars auf der attac-Sommerakademie 2016 in Düsseldorf findet sich nun auf youtube.
In dem Seminar ging es vor allem um die Darstellung von Grundbegriffen und Grundkonzepten der Wirtschaftswissenschaft. Dadurch soll den Teilnehmern geholfen werden, aktuelle Berichterstattungen und Diskussionen genauer zu begreifen und die Konzepte zu verstehen, die hinter den verwendeten Begriffen wie Wert, Markt, Einkommen, Geld, Einkommen stehen.
Gegliedert ist das Angebot in drei Teile:
– (Vor-)Klassische Wirtschaftslehre: Die Herausbildung einer gesonderten Wirtschaftswissenschaft (Merkantilismus, Phy- siokraten, Klassik . . .)
– Der Streit um Wert und Verteilung: Markt und Staat (Keynesianismus und Neoliberalismus …)
– Perspektiven: Kann eine neue Wirtschaftswissenschaft jenseits von Wachstum und Vollbeschäftigung entstehen? (De-Growth, Vier-in-Einem-Perspektive, Soziale Qualität …)Ein kurzer Einführungstext und eine Zitat-Sammlung ist hier zu finden.

Blurring Borders

The STOA Report on The Collaborative Economy informs that

[t]he founders of Defense Distributed are not terrorists. They are US based libertarians who support gun ownership, and found in 3D printing a means to allow ordinary people with no advanced skills to create and own a gun without having to obtain a license.
And the small print of the footnote adds:
• Under US law guns manufactured by individuals for personal use are not subject to a licensing requirement.
Of course, as a contribution on the website on 3DPrint assures
officials in every country see it as their responsibility to try and fight many new designs and new issues that someone like Wilson brings to the forefront, especially as threats of terrorism surface constantly
There is no doubt urgent need for such “protective policies” – I talked the other day to a friend who lives in a village near Brussels – she, a vivid and brave women, is afraid these days to go to Brussels, and she said many are. I do not even mention the fear of students, and their parents here in China.
There is something else that is possibly more remarkable than the technical side – and the side of the control of technology. The article from the mentioned 3DPrint-site talks about
[r]esponding to press questions regarding accessibility for terrorists with a ‘don’t really care’ attitude
and this is what “libertarians” of a certain kind do – they don’t care, to be more precise: they do care only for themselves, following one of their “great masterminds” who asked
who is society?
and replied:
There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.
Indeed, the(se) libertarians entered systematically the stage in the 17th century, in particular in England, the home land of the capitalism we have today. And it is the(se) libertarians whose activities evoke discussions, suggesting that
[i]t is not yet clear just how much this technology presents a real danger to the public
What is not clear? If we pose the question that technological advancement has to be applied to the advancement of private wealth, if we see the public as secondary, its wealth a result of
individual men and women and … families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.
to quote Thatcher again, then it is clear how much real danger there is: it is the danger of the past that as nightmare burdens our society – the nightmare of total and systematic individualism … – difficult to get back under control, as known for a very long time:
Sir, my need is sore.
Spirits that I’ve cited
My commands ignore.”To the lonely
Corner, broom!
Hear your doom.
As a spirit
When he wills, your master only
Calls you, then ‘tis time to hear it.”

And they are really not terrorists?

Rudolf Hickel: Versuch eines Nachrufs auf Herbert Schui: Theoriegewaltiger Kapitalismuskritiker

Gastbeitrag – übernommen aus dem Rundbrief der Memo-Gruppe

Rudolf Hickel

Versuch eines Nachrufs auf Herbert Schui: Theoriegewaltiger Kapitalismuskritiker

Als die Nachricht vom Tod Herbert Schui’s sich verbreitete, war die Betroffenheit groß. Seine Mitstreiter, seine Freunde, aber auch diejenigen, die er in der Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Politik scharfzüngig kritisiert hatte, wissen, ein großer Ökonom in der Tradition der kritischen Politischen Ökonomie steht für die dringend notwendige Aufklärung nicht mehr zur Verfügung.

Seine wissenschaftliche Karriere begann er nach dem Studium der Volkswirtschaft im Forschungsprojekt „Geldtheorie und Geldpolitik“ an der gerade neu gegründeten Universität in Konstanz. Der Chef war damals der hoch renommierte Monetarist Karl Brunner aus Rochester (USA), der die Federal Reserve Bank scharf kritisierte. Da hat Herbert Schui die Giftküche der Marktfundamentalisten kennengelernt. Er arbeitete als wissenschaftlicher Assistent mit dem deutschen Monetaristen Manfred Neumann, der als Fundamentalkritiker des Keynesianismus auftrat, in diesem Forschungsprojekt zusammen. Zur Summer-University rief Brunner als Vertreter des internationalen Monetarismus viele Jahre die allerdings nur der neoklassisch und monetaristisch zuzuordnenden großen Ökonomen an den Bodensee. Herbert Schui nutzte die Chance, auf diesen Sommeruniversitäten mutig mit etwa Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Harold Demsetz und vielen anderen Vertretern eines Marktfundamentalismus zu streiten. 1972 promovierte er erfolgreich über das System der Geldpolitik in Frankreich. Die Wahl des Landes war kein Zufall. Seine Liebe galt Frankreich und seiner Ferme, dem kleinen Bauernhof in einer damals verarmten Bergregion in der Nähe von Limoux.

1974 wechselte er zur neu gegründeten Universität Bremen. Seine Lehre zu allgemeinen Fragen des Kapitalismus aber auch zu den Grundannahmen der modernen Preistheorie wurde von den Studierenden geschätzt. In Bremen wirkten die theoretisch und politisch gefürchtete „Trio Infernale“ Schui/Huffschmid/Hickel. 1980 wechselte er zur Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Politik in Hamburg (HWP). Dort wurde er zum führenden Kopf einer Wirtschaftswissenschaft, die kritisiert, wie Konflikte zwischen Kapital und Arbeit mit neoklassischen Mythen verdrängt werden.

Mit seiner Theoriegewalt und im Bemühen um Aufklärung konnte er sich nicht auf den Elfenbeinturm reduzieren. Schon in seiner Konstanzer Zeit war der Intellektuelle bei den Gewerkschaften als Referent und Berater gefragt. Dieser Aufgabe blieb er bis zu seinem Tod verbunden.

Herbert Schui nutzte auch die Medien, um seine Botschaft gut begründet zu verbreiten. In Tageszeitungen wie der „Frankfurter Rundschau“ und später auch im „Neuen Deutschland“ und vielen anderen Organen provozierte er mit spannenden Kommentaren.

Sein Schritt in die große Politik war konsequent. Mehr als eine Legislaturperiode saß er in der Fraktion DIE LINKE im Bundestag. Dort lernte er auch, wie schwierig es wegen unterschiedlicher Bewertungen innerhalb der LINKEN sein kann, gemeinsame Positionen zu fixieren.

Wissenschaftspolitisch gehört die Gründung der „Arbeitsgruppe Alternative Wirtschaftspolitik“ – auch Memo-Gruppe genannt – zusammen mit Jörg Huffschmid 1975 zu seinen überragenden Leistungen. Er hat Positionen entwickelt, diskutiert und schließlich auch auf den jährlichen Pressekonferenzen vor allem in der Anfangsphase in Bonn vertreten.

Der Ort, an dem die Memo-Idee geboren wurde, sagt auch etwas über den Genießer aus. Mit Jörg Huffschmid saß er am offenen Feuer seiner Ferme in der Nähe von Limoux in Frankreich beim Wein. Die beiden warteten, bis endlich die Lammkeule gegart sein würde. Sie nutzten die Zeit zu einer intensiven Diskussion über die ökonomische und wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Lage. An diesem Ort vereinbarten die beiden Vordenker, ein MEMORANDUM zu einer alternativen Wirtschaftspolitik zu verfassen. Nach der Rückkehr aus dem Süden Frankreichs wurde auch ich in den Ideenimport eingebunden. Zur Erinnerung: 1975 brach die Wirtschaft ein, die Arbeitslosigkeit stieg. Das erste MEMORANDUM richtete sich gegen die damals kreierte neoklassische Parole von den steigenden Gewinnen zu Lasten der Löhne, die morgen Investitionen und übermorgen Arbeitsplätze schaffen sollen. Diese Grundkritik gilt bis heute.

Es wäre anmaßend, an dieser Stelle das gesamte wissenschaftliche und politische Werk von Herbert Schui zu bewerten und zu würdigen. Deshalb nur der Hinweis auf drei Themen, die dieser Ökonom vorangetrieben hat:

  1. Er forschte über die Grundfragen der Anatomie des Kapitalismus und entwickelte die Theorie von Karl Marx wirklichkeitsverankert weiter. Dafür steht seine Publikation „Ökonomische Grundprobleme des entwickelten Kapitalismus“.
  2. Während seiner gesamten wissenschaftlichen Tätigkeit konzentrierte er sich auf die Analyse der monopolistischen Konkurrenz mit ihren negativen Folgen für den Wettbewerb, die Gesamtwirtschaft sowie die politischen Machtverhältnisse. Dabei leistete er Pionierarbeit zur empirischen Bestimmung des Monopolisierungsgrads in Deutschland.
  3. Die Weiterentwicklung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Analyse nach der Theorie von John Maynard Keynes hat er erfolgreich vorangetrieben. Sein Erkenntnisinteresse galt der Frage, wie ein Marktsystem auf einzelwirtschaftlicher Rationalität zur gesamtwirtschaftlichen Irrationalität in Form von Krisen führen kann. Dabei hat er auch die Verteilungsfrage in der Tradition von Michael Kalecki und Nicholas Kaldor berücksichtigt.

Herbert Schui war ein Kämpfer vor allem gegen die Mythenbildung der vorherrschenden Wirtschaftswissenschaft. Gelegentlich unterstrich seine Lautstärke den unerbittlichen Einsatz gegen affirmatives Denken. Sein Tod sollte zum Anlass genommen werden, sein Werk zu studieren. Dann könnte die Lücke, die er hinterlässt, kleiner werden.

 

____________________ Bremen, im August 2016

 

====

Ergänzung Herbert war ebenfalls Mitglied des wissenschaftlichen Beirates von attac

the wealthy continue to gain, for most of the others it remains pain

Or: fiscal policy as social policy may sound as provocation … though Robbie Pye and Owen Parker rightly state

A greater array of social and labour policy areas have been subsumed within macroeconomic coordination (as discussed further in the following section), wherein they are decided by economic and finance actors in DG ECFIN and the Economic and Finance Council (Copeland and James, 2014; Oberndorfer, 2015; Schellinger, 2015: 6). DG ECFIN has, moreover, repeatedly proposed increasing its own powers of oversight of member state ‘competitveness’ (EPSC, 2015) – conceived problematically in terms of ‘structural reform’ and labour market flexibility – in ways that critics have rightly asserted would amount to the Europe- anisation of the MoU approach and the significant further erosion of social rights (Oberndorfer, 2015: 199).
In this light it does not really matter “who” is delivering – as I stated myself in various contributions on social policy, EUropean integration and Social Quality: the problem is not about weighing social ad economic policies, the problem is what kind of economic policy do we ask for.
Anyway, for Germany it is now apparently getting even clearer what this subordination means – the Bundesbank reviving an old proposal and asking for retirement at 69 – though it still seems to be disputed. Anyway, one sentence from the article in French language
deserves special attention, so my translation follows:
Life expectancy in Germany is 78 years for men and 83 years for women, climbing stubbornly.  … – the legal age (for retirement) is already moving gradually from 65 to 67 years, though the effective age of end employment is approximately 62 years – that’s a lot of years to spend in retirement. Financed through contributions of those who work … and this is a a decreasing number, aging population is under pressure.
At least three questions remain on the table.
* If we are referring to an insurance principle, it is strange that people pay into the system …, and do not get the “premium” paid out
* If it is about solidarity between generations, it remains to be answered if solidarity is a matter killing pro rata temporis
* If it is about global justice and human rights, the most fundamental question remains why there is still this one percent that is allowed to expose the most parasite behaviour and even may fly in their jet for presidential candidature
– For those who like the more sober analysis, may read Branko Milanovic’s book on Global Inequality also showing some interesting global shifts behind this. Indeed, the wealthy continue to gain, for most of the others it remains pain.