All The Same …

Something done – timely. Well, saying timely is not absolutely correct as I actually mean: time to get it out of the way after spending extensive time on the work: bringing the different contributions together, working,discussing drafts … – and writing something that is more meaningful than saying that a crontrubuted by saying … and be contributed by saying … Well, still couple of weeks left before it can be bought.

But actually having said ‘timely’ is actually correct too: after so many publications on the crisis since 2008ish (and many good, important contributions without any doubt) the present volume aims on showing the need to go beyond the ‘standard proposals’ – those that are remaining in the structural cage of the growth economies – and this includes to some extent also the post-growth-orientations, as critical and productive many f them are. Actually, via the work in the scientific committee of attac I am involved in these debates too – and there will be surely interesting and challenging debates during the upcoming meeting of the European Network Academy for Social Movements (ENA) – for my part it means leaving Munich-office end of next week, joining at least for some of the debates in Freiburg, also preparing the Euromemo-conference in Vienna, planned for September, and then heading for my Finland job.

Sure, all this travel and these different activities are very much “a private thing” – but they are at the very same time exactly a matter that is at stake also in the book: a new way of work, of living, the actual meaning of what economy is about – ….. AND THE WAY OF ANALYISING IT. At least for me, living globally and working in the different fields – here on Munich it had been very much law, shifting now to political movement (if you want “governance”), and then working again more on economics … – in a way you may say: the privilege  of living what I am working on and writing about – and what Paul called for to think about in new terms: the  modèle anthroponomique

BTW, it is a special pleasure for me that I have been invited to join the Eurasian Center for Big History and System Forecasting at the Lomonosow Moscow State University as as Associate Member.

Anyway, some information on the book now:

All the Same – All Being New

Basic Rules of Capitalism in a World of Change

Peter Herrmann (ed.)

Contributors
Paul Boccara, Judit Csoba, John Bellamy Foster/Robert W. McChesney, Peter Herrmann, Arno Tausch

 

For Paul Boccara

Friendship, Openness, Trust

In Advance……….. 4

Peter Herrmann……….. 5

Deciphering Globalisation – An Introduction……….. 5

Paul Boccara……….. 58

“We must incriminate the basic rules of capitalism”……….. 58

John Bellamy Foster/Robert W. McChesney……….. 63

Monopoly-Finance Capital and the Paradox of Accumulation……….. 63

Arno Tausch……….. 85

Paul Boccara’s Analysis of Global Capitalism……….. 85

Paul Boccara……….. 115

The Global Crisis and Africa : Struggles for Alternatives……….. 115

Alternative Financial System for North and South and Struggles to Master the Market, and for Common and Public Services or Goods, from Local to Global Levels……….. 115

Judit Csoba……….. 126

Goals and tools of Public Employment Programs in Hungary……….. 126

Paul Boccara……….. 144

Labour market, employment and unemployment policies in the European Union……….. 144

Paul Boccara……….. 155

What needs from Marxism?……….. 155

Annex……….. 160

Human Rights – Law and Economy

But I wouldn’t start from here … – Contribution to Theorising Human Rights

Indeed, it is easy to say what we frequently suggest as solution to some of the problems – the Irish way: “But I wouldn’t start from here!” And indeed, it seems to be a simple thing, just starting from somewhere else and going a smooth part, just forward. The one thing is, of course, that we frequently do not really have a choice: we are just thrown into something, 18th Brumaire: history as nightmare, made by us but under conditions we find, that out of reach for us. But for the sake of truth, don’t we have to admit that we don’t think much about from where we start – not taking account of the variety of options as conceptualised by way of a counter-reality by Musil in his  “Mann ohne Eigenshaften” (“The Man without Qualities”)?

Human Rights – Law and Economy

is the title I gave to a public lecture I had been invited to give in the series of lectures at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, a lecture which is part of my stay in Munich – generously supported by the MPI (and giving work-opportunities in the library that are tempting to stay there over night) – will present some of the tentative results of the on-going research. The aim is to see the connection between Human Rights (legislation) and economy not in terms of the need to strive for just distribution of the wealth of this planet. Rather, at the core of the work are conceptual considerations. Sure, it is correct to say Human Rights begin at the breakfast table, the need to avail of sufficient resources for everybody. But we should not forget that the greatest ‘injustice’ is a system that can claim justice on the formal level. Although this is an underlying topic of the current research – and the presentation – at its heart stands the question of different modes of production and the way in which this has repercussions in the reflection on human rights and vice versa: in which way human rights perspective may impact on developments of the mode of production.

On a very pragmatic and really trivial level, working here again for a while, one has to strive with the every day’s decision from where to start: the library, the desk work (including the need to do the homework, following from teaching in Finland, Hungary and Ireland) or with meeting colleagues for shoptalk or simply for gossiping.

Science and Truth

Ed elli a me: “Ritorna a tua scïenza,

che vuol, quanto la cosa è più perfetta,

più senta il bene, e così la doglienza.

Tutto che questa gente maladetta

in vera perfezion già mai non vada,

di là più che di qua essere aspetta.”

********

And he replied: ‘Return to your science,

which has it that, in measure of a thing’s perfection,

it feels both more of pleasure and of pain.

‘Although these accursèd people

will never come to true perfection,

they will be nearer it than they are now.’

(From Dante’s Inferno, scene VI)

But should these people walk each on his/her alone – ON THEIR OWN? True knowledge is only knowledge owned by all – and can only emerge from collective and cooperative endeavour.

Anthropology and more

Anthropology – how it works or: once it is always the first time

Create an image of your superiority; then behave according to the image and confront with “the other” – but do so after creating the other as inferior. If you do not make a mistake on the way you will be in (I guess) 80+ percent of the cases be able to maintain your prejudices.

Advanced version: To show your superiority return to your own tribe of white people and say that “the other” also should have rights – refer to the universal declaration and highlight the importance of article 23 and 25, especially highlighting the implication of a capitalist system, based on employment etc..

Further possible advancement: upload this proof of your superiority on youtube (or the like) to let the world know about your wisdom – as the world won’t be able to follow the entire story, make sure that you tell only half of it – don’t worry that it may cause some disorientation as half of the truth may be a complete lie.

Peak of wisdom: you do it not as anthropologist but as school and advise your government – as Mr. Rostow (and many others) did in the spirit of a non-communist manifesto. Even go a step further: Rather than accepting the need for real and critical confrontation you declare your work as part of the war against evil and terror.

NB: working as academic, make sure to use fancy titles and expressions like Clash of Civilisations or End of History. By such (sometimes publisher-provoked) modes of flattening actually highly interesting arguments you will lessen the impact on truly academic debates but you will increase sales figures and you will also scale up on impact  and ranking lists.

Conclusion: this principle pattern can be used in various situations, not only the one depicted inn the clips. It can also be applied in debates on religion, ethnicity, social class and not least in justifying the lack of democratic processes. As Nira Yuval-Davis writes

Different social divisions, such as class, race and ethnicity, tend to have certain parameters. They tend to be ‘naturalized’, to be seen as resulting from biological destiny linked to differential genetic pools of intelligence and personal characteristics*

Recommendation: make sure that you avoid education.

___________________________

* Yuval-Davis, Nira, 2006: Intersectionality and Feminist Politics; in: European Journal of Women’s Studies; London et altera: Sage; 13/3: 193-209: here: 199, with reference to Cohen, Philip, 1998: The Perversions of Inheritance; in: Cohen, Philip/Bains, Harwant S. (eds.) Multi-Racist Britain; London: Macmillan

Education

People who blindly subordinate themselves in collectivities, degrade themselves to some kind of material, a sort of thing, obliterate themselves as self-determined beings. This concurs with the readiness to treat others as amorphous mass … Democracy that does not only function in a mechanical way but that works according to it’s meaning requires responsible citizens. We can imagine realised democracy only as society of mature beings. … The concretisation of such matureness that some people who feel destined aim with all energy on defining education as education provoking dissent and resistance.

Menschen, die Blind in Kollektive sich einordnen, machen sich selber schon zu etwas wie Material, löschen sich als selbstbestimmte Wesen aus. Dazu paßt die Bereitschaft, andre als amorphe Masse zu behandeln ….. Eine Demokratie, die nicht nur funktionieren, sondern ihrem Begriff gemäß arbeiten soll, verlangt mündige Menschen. Man kann sich verwirklichte Demokratie nur als Gesellschaft von Mündigen vorstellen ….. Die Konkretisierung der Mündigkeit besteht darin, daß die paar Menschen, die dazu gesonnen sind, mit aller Energie darauf hinwirken, daß die Erziehung eine Erziehung zum Widerspruch und zum Widerstand ist. 

Theodor W. Adorno, 1966 – translation P.H.

It could be different …

It could be different, but it is possible this way too ….

These are words of the last e-mail before the INKRIT-meeting, gathering for some general debates, and mainly working on the Historical-Critical Dictionary Marxism, referring to Brecht’s Three-Penny Opera.

The location of a rather intense couple of days: Esslingen, a small town, or even village in the proximity of Stuttgart, in Southern German. Writing: or even village means that I actually didn’t see it. Arriving there by train Wednesday night, I took the bus to a remote conference-hotel, not really seeing anything of the place. And remote means remote, giving an exciting view: the (low) mountains, the valley covered by the raising fog – a carpet – seen from the height, a ceiling from the other side … It actually is different, depending on the side from which we look.

The usual ‘regular verb’ behaviourthe meeting in of the editorial board of The Argument as new field of activities and then the workshops. A rather interesting, not to say exciting work. Discussions that seem to be as remote even from our daily academic work as the Jaegerhof and even Esslingen. And although the debates are intense, it is in some way relaxing: concentrated on such a wide range of areas as Human Rights to Laughing, as life conduct to courtesan ….. And ranging as wide rural exodus – a term in itself so varied if looked at by the colleagues from Germany or Cuba and Brazil.

And relaxing in any case, being directly engaged – ex officio so to say – with Étienne Balibar on whose draft I comment or as listener, just ordinary participant. And as relaxed as all this is, as open the debate is there is surely also the tension. How to describe it? Between those who own all the experience simply due to age and those who have all impartiality on their side – sure one may also say: the claim of authority versus, or going hand in hand with gormlessness, and the deadlock engaging with innovativeness. The productive tensions as well, growing out of so different people meeting there: Brasil, Cuba, Germany, Italy, France …; villages, large cities ….

Yes, all could be different. And perhaps that is what makes it so inviting: A tension one can perceive as relaxing in its open way, as it aims on producing something new, aims on making a difference rather than continuing to move along, the dogtrot. So remote, even the tensions being so remote that I only mentioning its actual meaning after Mehmet dropped me at Stuttgart’s train station. First plans for future collaboration – the hug when we say farewell – knowing it is this way possible too. And emerging in relaxed atmosphere around Stuttgart’s train-station: people enjoying the sun, licking ice or sitting in the sun” the German Sunday-tradition: “coffee and cake” ….

… and the flowers in front of the station:  a reminder: Stuttgart 21 – not always as peaceful as it appears on the Sunday afternoon, not always as remote from daily quarrels as it suggests this sunny afternoon. And I feel as well how important all these apparently purely academic debates are in order to make sense, to change such reality. 

It could be different, but it is possible this way too …. – and to make it possible that the daily, centered around commodities, consumption, so-called performance possible in everyday’s life we need the remoteness: clear, concise thinking: exhausting, focused, provoking to contradict and not allowing any contradiction.

It is also something that is so simple, and so difficult to achieve. An excellent, energising experience – though showing how remote we are ourselves from really living it, maintaing so many illusions, voluntarily chosen subordinations and authoritative deification. But at least there is an open field for contest – from which academic life distanced itself so much.

All has to be different, it only pretends to be possible this way too …

 

 

 

 

 

The War – Finally Won? Or: Responsibility of Education

“There is no such thing as society”- Margaret Thatcher is famous for these words. And here is a little bit more context – and extract from the interview she gave in September 1977 for Woman’s Own

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—” It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it” . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”

Indeed, it is a whole mindset – and leaving Falkland aside, leaving other wars aside which had been fought for one or the other side with success during the 1980s this can be seen as a victory not just for the then British government but for a story that finds roots in the Scottish and English enlightenment: An economic system and its justification which meant that finally the bourgeois besieged the citoyen (not by accident we speak of a bourgeois revolution and in English language [like in German language] we barely know a term for the citoyen): the free marketer and his basis: the free producer winning over the free spirit and his foundation: the free thinker.

Indeed, the free spirit, the free thinkers of that very time when Bentham, Mills and Smith urged for their stance had been very much … – well, actually from the same idealist gauge as their bourgeois complements. Still, there had been a difference. The liberalism in economic meant pleading for a system that was devised with certain characteristics undermining the freedom it claimed: this kind of competition meant the systematic founding block for economic oligopolistic and monopolist power; the accumulation mean the systematic tendency of the profit rate to fall, thus urging to financalisation … – and most importantly: the freedom of the labourer meant – as Marx emphasised – being free in the double sense of being free as person, i.e. not being owned as slaves or in a relationship of personal dependence from a landlord: free to sell their ability to work to any employer; and also free from the means of production other than their own capacity to work (thus selling their labour power rather than their labour or the product of it.)

It is not completely correct to speak of idealism in many cases – it had been just the ‘oversight’ of biased economists viewpoints, being caught in their cages of the emerging bourgeois society.

As said, their citoyen-contemporaries and actually – though not necessarily knowingly and/or willingly – allies had been surely idealists. And though the German language doesn’t have word for the citoyen, they have had plenty of them: they still occasionally claim to be the nation of poets and philosophers. One of them: the great Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

In his scientific studies we find thought-provoking passage. He contended:

To know nature, one ought to be nature itself. What one is able to express of nature is always something specific, that is it is something real, something actual, namely something in relation to oneself. But what we express is not all that is; it is not the whole nature. … Although they can say nothing of things-in-themselves, that is, are out of relation to us and we to them, and because we recognize everything that we say to be in our own mode of representation … it is evident that they at least agree with us that what human beings can predicate of things does not exhaust their nature …*

Three positions, at first sight close to each other:

There is no such thing as society

And they are so different in their final substance:

* The free spirit, claiming individuality as personality, well educated (German language has the term Bildungsbuerger – I don’t know exactly what it means: the citoyen rooted in education? Or the citoyen living amongst educated citoyens? Or the citoyen living through behaving in an educated way? – Nuances, opening a wide array for a discourse on civilisation. In any case somebody for whom ‘egoism’ is inherently linked to, undeniable knows that this individual being is only possible and meaningful as part of a universe. And, though possibly Christian, believer in god, convinced that achieving the good depends on his action, immediately acknowledging this embeddedness.

* The utilitarian: bourgeois, surely not egoist in a strict sense, guided by moral sentiments and trusting that the good will be result of an invisible hand of gods goodness or the markets mystic power.

* The iron lady – in a way we may feel pity for her as she is assigned the role of having not only phrased this loss so well but also being responsible for it: Thatcherism. And indeed, she had been the ‘winner’, in a way we may say her evil spirit transforming Labour (if there had been such thing as real Labour – but that is another question, part of it already discussed in Marx’ work Critique of the Gotha Programme. But as much as her success had been carrying on into the future we should not give her too much credit: she continued very much what had been structurally engraved in the blind trust in the free market, and in the trust in relative productivity advantage (surely very bold: one could see Ricardo as a forerunner of Amartya’s and Martha’s capability approach**) and the cunning*** of the nation (sorry lads, I know, you only wanted the best).

In this light, MT had been only describing a reality.

Still, there is another light – and with this I come to the responsibility education has to accept. Thatcher only executed a tendency that had been strucutrally inherent in the development of the British and world economy. But nevertehless – is this part of the cunning of reason Hegel did not have in mind? – she planted the seeds: nurtured and cultivated a mindset that – with some exceptions as for instance the miners’ and printers’ strike – allowed to structures to take over: to become the one reality of various realities that would have been possible.

And this is what we, those working and studying in the academic world – should never forget: there is only one reality, but there are different ways to shape it.  Surely without pleading for an idealist approach – seeing it as matter of practice in the truest sense instead – I think we are as well responsible as we are not just working with students as they come (not least as they come from an overwhelmingly authoritarian schooling system, with the experience of living in an undemocratic, consumerist, competition oriented society …) but as well with students how they want to can be. To show how the ballast can and has to be left behind means not least showing what democracy, transparency, empowerment etc. means. Preaching virtue is not worth the paper they are written on as long as we do not – collectively – show ho they can be lived. To paraphrase the young Marx:

The idea emerges as material power if and when it merges with the mass of the people.

I want to remind you at what Ernst Bloch pointed out – and quote a summary from a text I write and that will soon be published,

highlighting four different kinds of possibilities, namely (i) the formally possible – what is possible according to its logical structure; (ii) the objectively possible – possible being based on assumptions on the ground of epistemologically based knowledge; (iii) the objectively possible – possible as it follows from the options inherently given by the object; (iv) and the objectively real possible – possible by following the latency and tendency which is inherent in its elementary form

(see Bloch, Ernst, 1959: Prinzip Hoffnung; Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp [written in 1938-1947; reviewed 1953 and 1959]: 258-288; Herrmann, Peter: forthcoming: God, Rights, Law and a Good Society. Overcoming Religion and Moral as Social Policy Approach in a Godless and Amoral Society; Herrmann, Peter, forthcoming: Searching for Global Policy).

 _____________________________

*******************

_____________________________

* Goethe, Johan Wolfgang, 1827: Conversations with Riemar; 2.8.1827; in: Goethe’s Gespraeche; Flodoard Freiherr von Biedermann; Leipzig: 1909-1911 (five volumes): I: 505; quoted in: Goethe on Science. An Anthology of Goethe’s Scientific Writings. Selected by Jeremy Naydler; Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1996/2006: 124 f.

** I want to add that I have really great personal respect for both of them! And this statement should not in any way be misinterpreted as offense!

*** The German word for cunning is List – and it had been Friedrich List whom we may see as founder and promoter of a system of national economic systems (of innovation).

Books – Where do they belong

May be I am a little bit irritable.

Working on another computer I couldn’t use my shortcut to UCC library where I had to check something. So http://www.ucc.ie as start and looking for the library shouldn’t make problems. It didn’t make problems, indeed. Still it made me think about problems – or should I say challenges, current structures and processes.

The structure of the website has the following menus – reproduced here in the given order:

Study
Current Students
Research
Staff
Teaching and Learning
Visitors
Alumni and Friends
About UCC

– I am not sure why I expected the library under research, study AND/or teaching ….n and why I then found it under about.

But perhaps somebody else has an idea.

What saddens me about it is that it is not just Cork. As one or the other of the readers may know I am affiliated as correspondent to the Max-Planck-Institute for Foreign and International Law [Look forward to go there soonish, to fulfil some duties in the framework of a short-term fellowship though I would love to stay here at ODTUe for a while]. The institut has now a new, i.e. second director, actually an economist which I personally think is (at least in principle) most exciting – I am working myself on different issues around linking Human Rights, Economics and Daily Life.

Now, there is something I don’t understand. This second director and his background in economics means some changes: new people, new orientations, new subjects …, but nothing in that for the library. May be somebody thinks and said: “We don’t need books. All statistics are available online.”

May be …, who knows?

University Ranking – Should we really dare it?

A recent mail (24/05/2011 12:45) had been circulated by the President of UCC – showing the lack of dealing with current challenges. And to be clear: I do not consider this as personal failure of anybody involved in the following, and only to a limited extent as personal merit in other instances.

Quickly from the mail – it states:

I wrote to you on 11th April 2011, asking you to participate in the QS academic peer review 2011 and I write again to remind you to please participate in this exercise. QS has informed UCC that the closing date for participating in the academic peer review has been extended to 14th June 2011.

As you know, there are a number of university ‘league tables’ which influence the perception and standing of universities worldwide. In 2010 over 20 million people viewed the QS University World Ranking with more than 600 newspapers and other media publishing the results. A critical part of the methodology employed by the QS World University Ranking is to undertake an academic peer assessment through a process of consultation with the global academic community. This involves the completion of an electronic questionnaire and accounts for 40% of the overall assessment. In 2009, 9,300 academics completed the questionnaire and in 2010 15,000 academics completed the questionnaire. Maximising participation in the QS academic peer review represents a significant opportunity for UCC to improve its world university ranking position in this particular ranking scheme

In an attempt to raise UCC’s the profile, I am requesting that all UCC academics contact at least three non-UCC academics and ask them to complete the questionnaire, which can be accessed at the following link – ….

It is important that the academics you contact understand the importance of UCC improving its University world ranking and that they complete the questionnaire by 14th June 2011.

To assist you in undertaking this task I have included at the end of this email a draft text for emailing to academic colleagues.

Thank you for your assistance,

As the mail had not been marked as confidential I have the clandestine hope that I will not be sacked for quoting it. And having written before

> I do not consider this as personal failure of anybody involved

is not meant as friendly gesture of excuse. I think we are facing a serious structural problem here.

Should we really look for such peer-review – and can we honestly do so?

Just two small incidences may show why I am sceptical – again, no personal failures, no personal merits.

Case one: If a mail is sent (from a colleague in the department) to a responsible person in the same department, making a serious proposal which is linked to discussions on the development of a new course and is not answered this may be simply considered as bold, forgetfulness or work-overload. However, it may also be seen in another way: The proposal did not fit in the overall business strategy (not a personal orientation but one of the National University of Ireland, HETAC, OECD etc.pp.), thus it is reason enough to ignore it. – It may be interesting to mention on this occasion that an earlier mail, fitting into such business strategy, had been answered by a mail sent (by the same ‘responsible person’) by mail which had been sent on a Saturday (or Sunday – can’t trace it now).

Case two: Working in different institutions, i.e. also teaching at different universities (something celebrated as UCC’s and the schools assets during the last review: international reputation) requires some special logistics, for instance organising marking exam papers not in the comfort of the home institution office but somewhere abroad. This is a somewhat common procedure. One university where I am teaching has a well staffed administration that makes sure that (where applicable) exam papers are scanned at the end of the exam day and sent for correction – and ‘well staffed’ means as well that people are not stressed out though well organised and hard working. UCC is entirely understaffed – and lecturers support each other [better to say here: support me, and the school’s reputation] with scanning and sending documents.

Is this what the President wants to be evaluated?

Courses – new and old – should not be set up as matter of business strategies but as matter of a meaningful academic work, as matter of contributing to new teaching, teaching new matters and systematically fostering relevant research.

And academic work needs bureaucracy, management – but one that has sufficiently scope to support the development of the academic work and reputation.

If anything should be ranked it is the role an academic institution fulfils in the democratic development of society of which it should be part rather than striving for positions in ranking lists of which in the meantime even the European Commission knows, stating already in a 2008-Press release (Reference: IP/08/1942 – Date: 11/12/2008) the need for

a new multi-dimensional university ranking system with global outreach

knowing that the currently still used systems are extremely limited in their meaning (to say the least).

Well, Mr President, alluding to one of our sayings*

You surely point out ‘the right way from here’ – but you should consider if we really want to go there.’

__________

* after explaining the way, completing by saying ‘but I would not start from here’

Sorry for delay …

Sorry for delay – or wor(l)d is turning around too fast OR

How “Media & Communications” at University College Cork contribute to maintaining second-rateness

Although it probably has to be said that it is a story that could happen in many other places of our “service societies”

Mail sent to UCC media:

Sent: 12 April 2010 10:24

Reply received from UCC media:

On 28/03/2011 16:04

Reply on reply sent to UCC media:

28 Mar 2011 16:08:36