I wrote a tweet this morning as an Easter reflection.
You can be of any faith and none and hope for renewal today, wishing that out of this chaos a fairer world might come. But it won’t unless we work for it. Forty years of oppressive economics is undermining that hope, even now. The change we get depends on changing that economics.
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) April 12, 2020
My own relationship with Easter is complicated. I was brought up by apparently deeply Christian parents. However, I never really worked out what impact that had on their lives. I guess it must have done, but as far as I could tell at the time, and in retrospect, their faith did not make their lives noticeably different from those of many others who appeared to profess no faith at all. I never did as a result learn from them what their faith was about.
I was, then, surprised when in my 30s I re-explored faith. Maybe we don't quite ever get over our parent's influence. But what I appreciated by then was that the form of faith was inconsequential to me: what mattered was its substance. I suspect that's why I found the Quakers. I have been a member for twenty or so years now.
Sometimes that membership is more important in my life, and sometimes less. But that is precisely the point: the form of attendance can be useful, but it is not what being a Quaker is all about. Action is. The Quaker view is that what people believe in is not as important as the action it gives rise to. After all, how can we ever really know what another person thinks when we usually struggle to be sure of that ourselves?
In that case the so-called Quaker testimonies, to peace, equality, simplicity and truth, to which some now add the environment although I tend to think it implicit in the others, matter a lot. And what happens outside the Meeting is at least as, if not more important than, what happens within it.
Hence, when I thought about my own tweet after I'd sent it, I needed to find my own interpretation of what it means and why I feel that way.
I believe that the economics of neoliberalism is about a war between some - the supposed owners of capital - and the rest of the world, represented both by labour and the physical world we all live in, which those owners of capital think a ‘free gift of nature' to be despoiled at will.
In this world view capital is scarce. It is only deserved of by some. The proof that they are worthy is to be found in the market place. No another exchange matters. And their spoils are not just theirs to keep, they are also to be protected from all claimants, including the state.
This is a deeply antagonistic state of being. The aggression implicit within it does, I very strongly suspect, reflect the insecurity of those who subscribe to this worldview. I suspect they know how limited it is. But power - over people and resources - has let them preserve it for the decades.
The outcome is anything but peaceful. Inequality is rife as a result of it. The mechanisms for control are far from simple. And every day the truth is denied to preserve the supposed merits of this system. The Quaker testimonies are then, in themselves, sufficient criteria to make clear why neoliberal capitalism is such a flawed basis on which to build a society. Nothing that is dependent on false selection criteria, oppression and destruction of the support system (the planet) that sustains us all can survive. Neoliberalism can't. It either changes, or we die with it.
And so I became a campaigner, because I believed something better was possible.
But I didn't give up my belief in markets: fair bargains can be made. They benefit us all. But the emphasis is on 'fair'.
And I didn't suddenly think equality was sameness. In fact, if anything I realised it means valuing all our differences as if each is important (so long as they are not abusive).
Simplicity is hard, and yet many right now are finding some merit in it. What we are living through is far from optimal, of course. And yet there are things we have learned. I sincerely hope I see as many people walking together as families and friends after this is over, for example, as I do now. That's a pleasure that is hard to replicate.
And as for truth? Has it ever mattered more?
I am not saying there is a perfect solution for this world anywhere. There isn't. Out complexity requires continual adaptation to circumstances. But there are some things that seem worth recognising as the basis of the society that we need if we are to survive the transition to the sustainable world we have no choice but create if we are to survive, which is a challenge much bigger than they one we now face.
We must base our society on non-aggressive structures, from top to bottom. That way there is enough for all.
We must value difference - so long as it is not oppressive.
We must live within our means.
And we must tell the truth about this.
All of which requires something that is almost wholly absent from the world of neoliberal economics. That missing thing is balance.
Neoliberals would say balance is the state of equilibrium. But they would also claim that is achieved when profit is maximised.
I would suggest that is the antithesis of balance. There's nothing wrong with profit. But maximising anything is at the cost of balance. And the result is always instability.
The neoliberal world's pursuit of profit at all costs has left us where we are. We are unstable and unable to deal with quite basic needs when it comes to care. This crisis has exposed that fact.
What we need is balance that embraces and values care. Then we will find our way forward.
That's what my alternative is.
And that's why we need to change economics.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Is it fair to have a Tax Justice campaign which last year spent no time campaigning for reform of Britain’s most unfair tax?
Is it fair to have a Tax Justice campaign which carps on about big organisations like Google, Apple, Netflix, Facebook but ignores the unfair actions of one organisation right here in the UK which is bigger than all those combined?
The problem with fairness is who gets to decide what it is and when it’s proportionate.
So what is the UK’s most unfair tax? Council tax, maybe?
And th3 most unfair organisation? You mean the one deliberately structured to be undemocratic to favour the Tories? I’d agree….
Thanks, Richard, for your Easter message. It’s helpful to hear you link your work up with your faith. It gives hope for the future. With you all the way.
Thanks
I saw your tweet (I’m not an Twitter – I only ever access it from your blog TBH) and welcome an expansion of it here.
The question is how do I work for change? How can I contribute?
The answer to that eludes me constantly. It is the bane of my life.
Great post by the way.
Care and the common good have always been at the bottom of the list as far as our rulers are concerned. First it was serfdom under a divinely righteous monarch with aristocratic control. Then new wealth from slavery emerged imposed by the European then American plantation owners. This provided the capital that funded the industrial revolution of wage slavery that followed. Our most recent history has been dominated by the financial exploitation of the general population by a system of ever mounting debt burdens place upon millions whilst a tiny minority live in luxury and ignorance of how most of the world’s population live. We now have to rethink our approach to throwing off these chains of economic and ecological exploitation.
We are being brought to our knees by the added perils of Covid-19 that have exposed the vulnerability of our present system of exploitative economics.If we don’t change now then what else is needed for a caring and compassionate society to emerge?
“Sometimes that membership is more important in my life, and sometimes less.”
Clearly, Brother Richard, it less important to you when it comes to considering the Friends “testimony of equality” which holds the use of titles to be contrary to the belief that all people are equal in the eyes of God.
It must be useful to have a religious view that allows you to pick out the parts of the belief you approve of and ignore those you don’t.
I only use the title Prof in a work context
Then it is like Doctor – a job description
You are making an untrue suggestion
Lara Rae says:
“It must be useful to have a religious view that allows you to pick out the parts of the belief you approve of and ignore those you don’t.”
Are you aware of any philosophy religious or otherwise which does not operate to some extent like that? It ill behoves the irreligious to be sanctimonious.
I am a Quaker, so heard about you when you gave the lecture “Tax Justice: A Quaker’s Concern” in 2014. It led me to follow your blog which I do most days. I am inspired by your writing, your clarity, your energy and your compassion.
Thank you, Richard.
Thanks Joe
Industrial Capitalism, as an economic system, has produced and continues to create great wealth. The criticism that Marxists and others level is that that wealth is very unevenly shared. This wealth inequality far from decreasing is accelerating. Whereas during the beginning of the twentieth century, even a captain of industry in the person of Rockefeller considered an income ratio of 20:1 as fair the twenty-first century sees inequalities exceeding 1,000:1. What the believers in Capitalism fail to appreciate is that poverty arises as the arithmetic consequence of double-entry. A double-entry system where the unequal power relationship of debtor and creditor goes unchallenged.
Shortly before the end of the sixth century AD, the story goes St Augustine was walking through a Roman slave market. He asked his companion, who are those fair-haired, blue-eyed children? The reply was they are Angles from Britain. Not Angles St Augustine replied — Angels. The Saint then made up his mind to bring Christianity to Britain.
St Augustine was well educated, came from an upper-class family. He was a follower of the Rule of St Benedict. He was a Christian. At that time only members of the aristocracy were permitted to enter the Benedictine Order. He was also brave. To contemplate undertaking the dangerous journey across Europe and negotiate with hostile tribes took courage. He was putting his life and the lives of his fellow monks on the line. In short St Augustine had all the virtues, none of the vices. He possessed all the qualities to make a leading contribution to the civic and spiritual life of his community. How then did St Augustine get it so wrong?
Why would we in the 21st century ask some serious questions of St Augustine? Now imagine if we in the Twenty-first century were able to persuade the Doctor to lend us his Tardis machine and transport us all back in time to that same slave market. To emphasise, imagine the children were all known as kith and kin to the time travelers.
What do you think our reaction including that of our leading politicians would be? They would I believe be screaming in Augustine’s ear. ‘Why do you want to go God bothering in Northern Europe’? You should be staying here and taking the lead in the fight against slavery– what otherwise is the point of your Christian faith? You should listen to the wise words of that great campaigner against all forms of slavery — Karlus Marximus.
The question is, why didn’t St Augustine see the economic system of slavery as an evil, whereas even our modern Tories, New Labour et al. would do so? Also, nowadays, why don’t those same people see Capitalism as equally flawed?
The obvious answer is that was the system St Augustine was born into and the only one he knew. In other words, that was the system in which he believed.
The time travelers have no such belief; they know of a different economic system, although having its own deep flaws, is better than slavery. Not only do they know of a better system they know in detail all the support systems that make it possible. They do not imprison their concept of Capitalism within all the supporting concepts underpinning slavery.
The force that held up the system of slavery is the same force that holds up what some call — neo-liberalism, or Capitalism as the term many favour. That force is the concept of belief. Once that belief is withdrawn Capitalism ceases to be the dominant economic system. Belief is not the same as agree with, or like. Belief includes not only what sort of world we would like to inhabit, which is very easy to reach consensus. Belief also includes all the practical steps of how to get to that place. It includes the development of different concepts of liberty, social support, justice, agency and so on. There agreement is very contentious. At that point we should employ the aid of science. There are three great intellectual achievements of the twentieth century, Relativity Theory, Quantum Mechanics and the Science of Cybernetics. Trying to solve our modern problems while imprisoning our concepts principally within the concepts of the 17th Century (those that underpin Capitalism) is to seriously hamper our efforts.
Both Aristotle and Plato were critics of Capitalism. They believed in market exchange where the terms of trade were fair. That is where the ratios of labour inputs were judged equal. They thought that a trader who brought to market X amount of money but left with X+ (a Capitalist) was destructive of Athenium society. The Covid-19 pandemic is causing many people to believe that Finance Capitalism (Neo-liberalism) is destructive of our society. A destruction that the virus doesn’t cause — merely exposes.
Financial capitalism is destroying us
And thanks for the post
It’s very good….
John,
I suppose we could add St Paul accepted slavery as fact of life, like it or not. Although he declared that in Christ there was neither slave nor free person.
Just want to point out that it was Pope Gregory who saw the Angle slaves. He sent Augustine on his mission.
But a good thoughtful post, Thank you
Thanks Ian. It is also worth pointing out that St Pratrick was an opponent of slavery. The Celtic church versus the Roman Church.
Capitalism has had a corrosive effect on politics.
Politics should be about compromise and working together in my view with a bias to supporting the majority of people in society.
The compromise operation lies in markets themselves, how they are managed, accounted for and who they benefit – outcomes that define if they are working properly or not for society as a whole. The problem is that modern/North American capitalism has created a monoculture, saying that the benefits of markets must accrue to the few only.
This idea that it is about ‘domination’ – pushing out competition – another form of monoculture – has also inculcated political thinking – look at the Thatcherite creed – still we are encouraged to seen Marx as the bogey man for example by Thatcherism and not being ‘one of us’ has been a very destructive and exclusionary force in British politics.
The other quality that has been eroded is ethics or morality. I still find it hard to believe that after 2008 we allow derivatives to exist – instruments like credit default swaps that enable people with a vested interest to bet on or get a pay out if something bad befalls a company and also the pro-active behaviour of those who have taken out such instruments to bring about the misfortune they will benefit from!
The concept of ‘forgiveness’ is being banded about here a lot – fair enough – by all means forgive, but for those labouring that point is it not worth considering that if we actually STOPPED a lot of this stuff we’d have a lot less to forgive!!?
How many times must we forgive? Hmmm? Speaking as a non-Christian, forgiveness may well be a suitable get out clause for spontaneous, ill thought out bad behaviour.
But for pre-meditated, deliberate, calculated and recalcitrant harm (over and over again)? No – I’m sorry , there has to be a limit and the financial sector in particular have gone way over those limits in my view. They have to be stopped. It is as simple as that. They have to be brought back into the moral and ethical zone we are all supposed to live in.
Dear Lara Rae
What a cheap point you fail to make.
Richard has been awarded academic titles in recognition of his work, his knowledge and contribution to certain debates that need to be had in our society. This helps new ideas to get traction and legitimises them in the pursuance of working towards a fairer society which is sorely needed.
It was a cheap Quaker point – poorly delivered
Richard, I think you must have been tuned in to our online Meeting for Worship this morning! Both in ministry and in our conversations afterwards the themes you address above were uppermost in our minds. I am in process of writing up notes to send to absent Friends and I will include a link to your post.
Pat
Thank you
That’s the way a good Meeting works
Go well
In friendship
Richard
Only you could try and make political capital on today of all days.
God is for everyone, and plenty of people with different political opinions to yours share the Christian faith.
You determination to judge others and misrepresent what they stand for is the antithesis of the Christian faith.
I never said this was for the Christian faith, much (but not all) of the human construct of which I will be candid I have little time for.
But what really amuses me is that if you were of that faith you would realise that you are instructed to forgive
Once again, for a Christian you are being very judgemental.
What are you expecting to be forgiven for?
My comment was quite simple – today is the holiest of days and the focus should be celebrating that, not trying to make political capital and pretending that you have the moral high ground above people who don’t share the same political views as you.
Trevor.
If you don’t appreciate the politics of Easter you are really missing the point
Hello Richard,
thank you for your todays comment, I concur with all you said. I like you am a Quaker, although as I live in France am a lapsed one. Just out of coincidence I was just reading from my daily little readings book which pointed me to Hebrews 13, v16,”And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices god is pleased. And as the comedian Dave Allen would say, “May your god go with you”. May you be sustained in your important work.
Thanks
And Dave Allen was very perceptive with that comment
A group I belonged to held a weekend conference in Sidmouth, some ten years ago, but we couldn’t use the venue on the Sunday morning as the Friends met there. They did, however, say we were welcome to join them. So I did.
For years I was on the committee of another group which arranged talks on counselling and psychotherapy. We hired the Taunton Meeting House for the evening talks.
A few years ago I decided I would attend a meeting one Sunday. Of the about twenty five people there, I knew four of them from other contexts and different groups I had been involved with. It sort of confirms what you say “The Quaker view is that what people believe in is not as important as the action it gives rise to.”
The Society draws a diverse range of people and that is a strength.
Thanks for all you do.
I would not for a moment evangelise for anything. Quakers suited me.
In islam, it is the action that is important rather than the intention. So intention is also important, but if you do not carry it out then there is no harm. Question of intent and action is a very interesting one in islam. Also the notion of kun faya kun, ie “to be” is God’s command. Either we exist in a moral framework or not. So the “to be” command is very relevant and a miracle . I am to be, is my view that i am here, and a live with God’s grace and mercy, to it add the notion of togetherness, that we all share on this earth and no man, woman or child is truly alone. We are all one, one humanity, one community and share this oneness with God. After he is only the ONE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-dXS5TI_dQ
Look closely and you’ll see life is biased towards balanced valuing even the human genome is made up of cannibalised parts of former deadly viruses.
It is interesting hearing about your Quaker connections in various blogs you have posted.
I remember in the early 90s I was pondering , “faith without works is dead” (James 2) and “by their fruits you will know them”.
And I coined the phrase (perhaps not the first person to do so)…
“Faith in action is faith indeed.” (Pun intended)
Which seemed to sum up the way I felt, though now I prefer the more universal … “Love in action is love indeed.”
I still have a healthy scepticism of peoples’ platitudes but a deep respect for the industriousness of good people.
If it wasn’t for the latter their would be no hope.
🙂
No, the ‘point’ of Easter is that Christ died for all, regardless of race, colour, creed, or politics.
Your judgment on those who don’t share your views is the exact opposite of what Jesus stood for.
You give genuine Christians a bad name.
You realise the politics of what you just wrote, I presume?
You obviously think you do Richard, why don’t you explain?
I see the whole New Testament as profoundly political
Read the Magnificat
The first sermon on Jubilee – and so to those who enslaved with debt
The Sermon on the Mount
The instruction to love others as oneself
The attitude to the money changers
The bias to the poor
The problem of ‘the eye of the needle’
The instruction on money
Then read Acts 2 and see how those who really followed saw the requirement
This is all radical politics
And the resurrection? This was about the transition to that new understanding and the forgiveness of the suns of the past
As Michael Hudson would have it, the forgiveness of our debts
Being Christian and endorsing the neoliberal world are incompatibilities as I read it
It seems the Pope and Justin Welby may be on my side right now
Im not religious but thats pretty much what Id take from the New Testament. And why I especially struggle with the frequently avowed allegiance to Christian values of the political Right. Seen at its worst in the USA but also here in the UK.
Theresa May, busy creating a hostile environment as the home secretary (which directly affected personal friends) – with photo-ops showing her attending church on Sundays.
” I see the whole New Testament as profoundly political”.
But not anti business:
The story of the talents would not have been put forward as a parable by One who did not favour business and investment as worthwhile activities.
St. Paul was in the tent-making business.
Incidentally, while neoliberalism may be incompatible with Christian ethics, I feel capitalism is far from being so. As I understand it, capital is simply wealth used to produce other wealth, for consumption, measured in monetary units. Labour and Capital go, sometimes literally, hand in glove. So if catching fish by lying down on a river bank and tickling for trout is Labour, then buying a boat and a net and going out on the water is applying Labour to Capital. Our Lord’s friends of course did just that, and He went with them. The ‘capitalism’ ought to be redeemed as a respectable term.
I never said anti-business, which I am emphatically not
And I draw a distinction between Pauline Christianity and the teaching of Jesus, as many do
Also noted I criticised a form of capitalism
A thought provoking post Richard. I always read your posts when I wake. My mind needs exercise before I am ready to face the day. Your ideas and those from others are just the ticket to remind me that not only is all not well with the world, but that there are still those who are choosing to care enough to act on their curiosities.
I am also reminded that choice is my greatest gift and most challenging companion. To act or not to act . More impactful perhaps than to be or not to be?
I like that idea
Thank you Richard, I really valued your reflection here and your openness in doing so. It challenges me to ask again how my own life, commitments and actions are being shaped by my beliefs and outlook.
[…] thoughts on Easter Sunday received the inevitable backlash yesterday, including the suggestion that I was politicising Easter […]
A friend of mine was for years (and probably still is) an enthusiastic Party canvasser at election times and regularly bemoans the fact that there are so many who ‘aren’t interested in’ politics. As if politics was a matter of occasional curiosity of no more import than the Olympic Games and should not be allowed to impinge on real life.
A similar compartmentalisation seems to affect many of a religious (church-going) disposition who seem to manage to separate their religious beliefs from having any influence on their daily lives (and particularly any relevance to politics). I’m not sure how they do that.
Richard in line with some of your warnings; I heard yesterday that staff at the National Portrait Gallery had been furloughed and then told they would be made redundant. What on earth is going on with a public sector organisation behaving in this way. Not sure of the details but if true it feels completely wrong to me for any organisation to be behaving in this way especially at this time.
This is not what the government scheme is for and yet as you have pointed out this is how it may well be used..
I admit I thought government agencies were excluded, but maybe this is a charity? Many charities are using it, I know