Dear anyone who is still even remotely interested in Aberystwyth Transitions Reading Group, and specifically this online space. As seems to be the way, the focus of social movement activism as reflected in Aberystwyth has taken another turn. Clearly, the transition town movement has passed for the town (for the moment). Currently, Ceredigion People’s Assembly (CPA) is a key forum for civil society collectivity, focussing on opposition to the austerity. Within that forum, a reading group is being proposed. So, the purpose of this post is to flag up perhaps using this space to foster that group and give it an online dimension? And also to think about changing the name of the site – if not the url. Or is it easier/clearer to start again with a new blog site, perhaps using a different platform – such as weebly?
Here’s the detailed CPA proposal:
CPA Reading Group Proposal Introduction This is a proposal for inaugurating a reading group within the Assembly. It is loosely-structured around the theme of austerity and organized as a “show-andtell.” That is to say, it presents a collection of writings that I have found useful in understanding the present, but it does not require that they are actually read (there are a few exceptions). Instead, I’ve sourced, for the main part, audio and video recordings in which the authors present or outline their work and which might prompt you to read it if it engages your interest.
Session 1: Double movement, neoliberalism and post-democracy In this session, we’ll focus not on austerity but on the broader historical context in which it is imposed, in particular: the history of capitalism as a whole; the neoliberal order of capitalism; and the hollowing-out of democracy that has occurred in the neoliberal era. Polanyi (1944) is a seminal text in political economy, and his concept of a “double movement” which structures the history of capitalist development has informed a lot of scholarly discussion of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The following single-paragraph entry in Wikipedia adumbrates the basic idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Movement Neoliberalism is a slippery term. In sober usage, it refers to three interrelated things: (1) an on-going tradition of political and economic thinking; (2) governmental practice which implements policy ideas emerging from this tradition; (3) and a period of time, from the 1970s to the present, during which such practice has come to be adopted by most governments across the globe. Mirowski (2013) is a good, albeit lengthy, introduction. To get a detailed flavour of the text pitched at a general audience, see this interview with Majority FM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsiT9P87J4g Whilst we are not (yet) living under a dictatorship, it’s clear that states such as the UK are no longer democracies in any fully meaningful sense. Crouch (2004) is the classical account of the social science term which attempts to capture this: post-democracy. Crouch (2016) retrospectively examines how the term has fared over the last decade, and it’s available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.12210/full
Session 2: Fiscal/monetary policy and the consolidation state Austerity dramatically changes fiscal policy (how states seek to put to use spare capacity in the economy), and monetary policy (the setting of interest rates and the like). This session involves us in an attempt to grasp the basic principles of both in a sovereign currency context, and to specify austerity in more detailed policy terms. MMT (modern money theory), exemplified by Wray (2012), provides a very lucid account of the functioning of fiscal and monetary policy. See, for example, the following talk on sovereign currency by Wray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i35uBVeNp6c In the talk, Wray portrays sovereign governments as relatively liberated from constraints such as tax revenue volumes and the demands of bond-holders. In the context of austerity, this might strike us as fanciful thinking. Streeck (2014) explains why, in particular through his characterization of the recent historical trajectory of western powers from welfare state, to debt state, and finally to consolidation state. For a briefer account, see Streeck (2011), which is available here: http://newleftreview.org/II/71/wolfgang-streeck-the-crises-of-democraticcapitalism Alternatively, see this talk at the LSE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5r9rqgPUVU
Session 3: Is austerity flawed policy or class struggle? So on to the issue of austerity itself. In this session, we’ll attempt to explore in greater depth our ambivalent attitude to it: our belief that what the government is doing is just plain dumb, and at the same time that the clever so-and-so’s are up to something. Blyth (2013) is an irate skewering of austerity as fiscal blundering, and a presentation of the book at the LSE is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM2cnMhJZyg For Seymour (2014), however, austerity is a sophisticated political project (and ideological practice) whose fundamental aim is a re-ordering of class relations and the state. He briefly presents the book here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxsBRJRqYCk and at greater length in an interview with Novara Media here: https://soundcloud.com/novaramedia/against-austerity-in-conversation-withrichard-seymour
Session 4: Real utopias and transitions Hopefully we now have a firmer and more detailed grasp of austerity, and we can move on to thinking about opposing it and working towards a more sustainable and egalitarian future. We’ll begin by looking at some ideas put forward by Erik Olin Wright, an American sociologist who has dedicated his career to building an “emancipatory social science.” Wright (2010) proposes “real utopias” as a framework for the imagining of alternative futures we might wish to work towards, and also provides us with a four-term schema for discussing and thinking about ways of transitioning to those futures. He gives an outline of the book in an interview here: http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/envisioning_r eal_utopias/ He talks specifically about transitions here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-KcHtYCtTs And you can find the Q & A for that session here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAZXGD3YO_Q
Session 5: Money as a site of struggle From Polanyi (1944) we’ve learnt that, in conjunctures such as our own, struggles are waged around the issues of labour (for example, precariousness in general or junior doctors in particular), land (fracking or the housing crisis), and money. The struggle around the issue of money might not be readily obvious because it has been so one-sided (banks have been bailed out, but families holding sub-prime mortgages have not). Ingham (2004) is a common point of reference in the contemporary discussion of money as a social institution, a crystallization of unequal relations of power, in which questions such as who controls and creates money, and on what terms, are raised and reflected upon. As a starting point, see Ingham (2008), chapter 4 (a photocopy will be provided). Although completely unreported by the media, struggles around money are being waged, and in this session we’ll try to look at three of these: the Brixton Pound; Positive Money; and the Just Money advocacy by Ann Pettifor (2014) and her colleagues at Prime Economics. Here are the relevant websites: • https://brixtonpound.org/ • http://positivemoney.org/ • http://www.primeeconomics.org/
Session 6: Labour as a site of struggle In this session we’ll focus on two labour issues: the “well-being agenda”, and automation. There is a wealth of statistical evidence—concerning rates of suicide, the incidence of stress-related disorders, and so on—that neoliberal societies are unhappy ones. To us it might be obvious that this has something to do with system-wide phenomena such as indebtedness or the stresses of precarious work, but what do governments and corporations think? Davies (2015) is an investigation of how they have come to the conclusion that this is a problem of individuals lacking “well-being.” He discusses his findings at a Verso-hosted event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M77Yxk7KJ6c Regarding automation, as things stand, precariousness looks set to spread as skilled work is increasingly automated. How should we respond? Srnicek and Williams (2015) argue that we should embrace automation and demand “fully automated luxury communism.” They put their case to Novara Media here: https://soundcloud.com/novaramedia/inventing-the-future
References: Blyth, M. 2013. Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crouch, C. 2004. Post-democracy. London: Polity Press. Crouch, C. 2016. “The march towards post-democracy, ten years on.” Political Quarterly 87: 71–75. Davies, W. 2015. The Happiness Industry. London: Verso. Ingham, G. 2004. The Nature of Money. London: Polity Press. Ingham, G. 2008. Capitalism. London: Polity Press. Mirowski, P. 2013. Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste. London: Verso. Pettifor, A. 2014. Just Money. Margate: Commonwealth Publishing. Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar and Rinehart. Seymour, R. 2014. Against Austerity. London: Pluto Press. Srnicek, N. and A. Williams. 2015. Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World without Work. London: Verso. Streeck, W. 2011. “The crises of democratic capitalism.” New Left Review 71: 5– 29. Streeck, W. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. London: Verso. Wray, L.R. 2012. Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomic Theory for Sovereign Monetary Systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave