Uncategorized

by

Reading Lolita in Tehran

Azar Nafisi taught English literature at the University of Tehran in the period immediately after the overthrow of the Shah. Her passion for literature is palpable throughout the book and her commentaries on Lolita, the Great Gatsby, Jane Austen and Henry James are informative and a genuine aid to appreciation. However, it is the way literature is juxtaposed with the progress of the revolution that is so fascinating and stimulating.Screen Shot 2015-09-03 at 18.02.15

Structured around recollections of her teaching and a women’s book club she sets up she describes a range of characters and their different experiences as the Islamic Fundamentalists become ever more powerful.

From the early days of the revolution where diverse political groupings of students argued on campus about the direction the new regime should take to later as the fundamentalists came to dominate and close down any challenge to the new orthodoxy.

It charts the way the veil was transformed from a voluntary expression of religious faith into a compulsory symbol of political oppression. Worse it makes clear this was a very specific form of male dominated political oppression. The accounts of the treatment of women whilst in one sense are not a surprise they still remain shocking. What also comes across is the hypocrisy that accompanied some of the worst excesses of the male guardians of the faith.

To be clear this is not an anti-Muslim book, far from it. What it is against is the totalitarian suppression of the individual and the denial of the right to freedom of expression. Totalitarianism does not grow out of Islam rather it traduces the Muslim faith to rationalise and legitimate its actions.

The way literature is shown in the book to be both the product and symbol of individual freedom and liberty is impressive. As the fundamentalist faction gains prominence and power, the condemnation of western literature as decadent becomes ever more strident. Certain books become more and more difficult to obtain and then banned. It is interesting how powerful literature is perceived by totalitarian regimes of all stripes as they attempt to control and ultimately destroy it.

Throughout the novel Ms Nafisi shows how literature can illuminate areas of life. She draws on Nabakov’s, work “An Invitation to a Beheading”. This Kafkaesque novel is about an individual condemned to death for “gnostical turpitude” which seems to consist of failing to blend in with those around him. Clearly, fundamentalist religion cannot cope with “gnostical turpitude” or, what amounts to the same thing, individuals. What Ms Nafisi brings out is the desire of totalitarian regimes, not just to impose external compliance but secure internal surrender.

Scarves and the veil become compulsory, shaking hands with a male who is not your brother or father is an outrage indeed looking into their eyes is the same. Imprisonment, torture and rape, stoning to death, disappearance and shooting were the very real tools of oppression. Within this incredibly repressive environment, the book club and literature become a way to cling to internal freedom, a way to avoid surrender.

This is a tremendous book which illuminates one of the major events in recent history with the light of individual human experience, with emphasis on the individual.

Published in 2015 By Penguin Classics.

 

Post script. I have used the term Islamic Fundamentalism in the above. As I wrote it I felt uncomfortable. Putting the two terms together seems to me to demean the former and provide a false veneer of acceptability to the latter. Fundamentalism in all its forms is first and foremost about power and only secondarily about whatever vehicle it uses to legitimise that power. I fear the two terms probably have to remain combined but I think it is important to always be clear that they are actually radically separate

by

What has changed? Reparations and Debt

The more I read John Maynard Keynes the more I think he must have been as humane as he was intelligent. His “Essays in Persuasion” start with a number of articles written in 1919 criticising the Treaty of Versailles and specifically the proposed reparations to be paid by Germany to the Allies.

He starts by analysing the state of the German economy and what, with a series of optimistic assumptions, it might be able to afford as an annual reparation payment. He arrives at £100,000,000. But even in relation to this figure he says, “…I doubt if Germany could be made to pay this sum annually over a period of 30 years…”.

Taking this figure he then computes the current value of the thirty years of payments and arrives at a figure of c£2bn as a “safe” maximum figure. Again he qualifies this  by saying that whilst it is a theoretically possible number it would actually be unlikely to be achieved. He then goes on to challenge how proposals for what would amount to £8bn or even £5bn could be sustained. He castigates the Treaty however not only for being economically impossible but also for being morally repugnant and dangerous. As he puts it:

“The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable, abhorrent and detestable, even if it were possible, even if it enriched ourselves, even if it did not sow the decay of the whole civilised life of Europe.”

His words in 1919 were incredibly prophetic as is now well known. The Treaty and its impossible terms fed into a process which would once again unravel Europe in the most shocking way.

I appreciate that most of the above is well known but it is interesting to call it to mind in the current circumstances and the quote above is certainly worth reprising.

By 1921 the mood had changed and it was becoming clear that the Reparations Chapter in the Treaty of Versailles was beginning to crumble. In one of the essays of this period Keynes talks about the way “inside opinion” had accepted from the beginning the main conclusions he had set about the Treaty. In this context he challenges the lack of political leadership. He sets out what he takes to be the modus operandi of politicians in a democracy as follows:

“It is the method of modern statesmen to talk as much folly as the public demand and to practice no more of it than is compatible with what they have said, trusting that such folly in action … will soon disclose itself as such, and furnish an opportunity for slipping back into wisdom.”

There are many times one thinks this might be the explanation for an inexplicable political position. I can think of no other reason Harriet Harman would say the Labour Party should vote in favour of benefit cuts to working people and perhaps this is what Angela Merkel’s defence would be in relation to Greek debt forgiveness.

Back in 1921 Keynes distinguished the inside and outside opinion. The outside opinion is that of the public, voiced by politicians and the newspapers, whereas the inside opinion is that of politicians, journalists and civil servants expressed in limited circles. In other words the former was the folly the public demanded whilst the latter was what the politicians and others really thought. The belief being that such outside views would prove impossible to implement and therefore eventually the public would come to wisdom on the issue.

In Keynes view this was a dangerous mistake and meant that the outside view was simultaneously given too much attention and too little. Too much because it was regarded as unchangeable and impervious to rational argument. Too little because it assumed because its policy proposals were impossible they would ultimately create no harm. Failure to challenge the outside view when it is wrong is a mistake. It was in 1921 and it is now. In 1921 it sustained an iniquitous approach to reparations which were clearly impossible to maintain, now it is creating untold harm to a nation with an outside opinion that the Greeks will pay back the Debt.

 

 

 

 

by

Economics After the Crash

After the director of research at the London School of Economics explained to Queen Elizabeth the origins of the 2007/08 credit crunch she asked “..why did nobody notice?” A simple question, but one which challenges not just failures of individuals but systemic failures of the science of economics. There have long been jokes about the uncertainty of economics but the failure of the profession to provide any indication of the scale of the problem that hit the US and then the rest of the world in 2007/08 challenged the very foundations of the subject.

Since then there has been a lot of rethinking and indeed some identification of trends which preceded the crisis that suggest a new “normal economics” which may render standard fiscal and monetary responses to recessions inadequate. Close to the heart of the crisis was Lawrence Summers,  as Director of the Economic Council for President Obama he shaped much of the policy response to the Great Recession. In late 2013 he reintroduced the concept of “secular stagnation”  originally coined in 1939 by Alvin Hansen in his address to the American Economics Association. Hansen’s argument was that certain factors (the lack of technological innovation and population growth) had created a context where low rates of growth would be the norm going forward.

Whilst a war and the reconstruction of Europe proved Hansen wrong there is real concern similar issues are now in play and set to create a new low growth norm. The issues around secular stagnation have been explored in a series of essays brought together in “Secular Stagnation: Facts Causes and Cures”. Whilst there is a variety of positions taken this collection of essays does contain some consistent themes.

Aggregate demand is seen as weak and with interest rates at the zero lower bound there is not much scope for monetary policy to stimulate investment. Demography with population growth slowing and life expectancy increasing the dependency ratio is set to increase across the world. In other words the number of those being kept by those who are working is set to increase.  High levels of public debt support austerian policy positions limiting the scope for debt funded public investment. Limited potential for technological innovations that are truly generically transformative like the steam engine and electricity.

Clearly each of these is subject to debate and argument. An additional one is the issue of inequality. This is seen as having been on a dual path. Internationally, levels of inequality have been declining as developing nations, notably China and India have integrated into the global economy. Intra-nationally, however, inequality has been increasing across the world. Wealth and income has become ever more concentrated in the hands of the 1% indeed even more so in the hands of the 0.1%.

It is not moral concerns of fairness that are the principle issues under discussion. Consumer capitalism needs consumers. If wealth is too concentrated then effective demand in the economy may be undermined. Added to this economic concern is one about the extent to which a modern democratic society can operate effectively if wealth starts to dominate the body politic. Stresses may start to build which the political process does not seem to be able to deal with, leading to dissatisfaction, cynicism and ultimately disengagement.  Democracy may not be the best system of government but it is the best system to avoid getting the worst system of government.

Economics as a subject is in as much a turmoil as the phenomena it studies. There are many who think the global financial system created over the past 30 years is inherently unstable. If this is the case there is much to fear in the future as it is this system which animates an underlying economy which itself now appears to have a series of structural challenges to overcome. One ray of hope is a renewed interest in the notion of political economy. A view point which does not think The Economy is “a thing”subject to laws of rational agent utility maximisation. Rather it is a space which is rational and irrational to shifting degrees. Where different groups contest for power and advantage and where  today’s orthodoxy can quickly become yesterday’s prejudice. Perhaps most important of all it is an area susceptible to rational policy interventions. It is not and should not be ruled by the TINA theory because there are alternatives.

“Secular Stagnation: Facts Causes and Cures” is an excellent review of key current issues in economics. It is available on line at:  http://www.voxeu.org/content/secular-stagnation-facts-causes-and-cures

 

 

 

by

Constitutional Deckchairs

The votes are in and Scotland has given a clear answer, however, given some last minute offers of the unionist parties, it is not quite clear what the question was. The ballot paper could not have been clearer – Should Scotland be an independent country? However, following polls indicating that the Yes and No campaigns were coming together that very simple question morphed into something along the lines of do you want independence or an increased level of devolution yet to be fully specified (terms and conditions apply…).

There is consensus amongst the main parties that the whole constitutional settlement for the UK has been thrown into the melting pot. If Scotland is getting Devo Max then the position of Wales, Northern Ireland, and most challenging of all England needs to be looked at.

Whilst the debate in the media and amongst politicians of all parties is about structural reform it is possible that this is profoundly misplaced.

Is it likely that the Scottish people voted for a a different structure for making political decisions? Or is it more likely that they voted for some different decisions?

In common with the rest of the UK and indeed most of the advanced economies in the world the living standards of the bulk of the population in Scotland have at best stagnated. Furthermore that process long predates the Great Recession. For some thirty years the share of GDP going to “hard pressed working people” has been going down.

Since the credit crunch the process has accelerated as the public benefits of the welfare state have been cut hitting hardest many of the most vulnerable in society. Interestingly the Yes vote in Scotland appears to have been strongest amongst those on low incomes. But for those in work the position has deteriorated also, Low pay, zero hour contracts, underemployment characterise the economy for many.

Going forward the prospect of secular stagnation is worrying many economists with the links between technological innovation, growth and rising living standards breaking down. When growth leads to rising living standards for all then inequality might be a moral concern but not a political issue. If growth stops, or it’s link to rising living standards is broken then inequality becomes “the” problem.

If constitutional reform leads to a different set of institutions and actors saying we have to “do more with less”, “live within our means”, “make difficult choices” then I suspect we are going to spend a whole lot of time, energy and money to get to where we started. A population becoming more and more alienated from the orthodox politics of austerity.