{"id":89096,"date":"2026-01-12T07:09:50","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T07:09:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=89096"},"modified":"2026-01-12T07:09:50","modified_gmt":"2026-01-12T07:09:50","slug":"economic-questions-the-erich-fromm-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2026\/01\/12\/economic-questions-the-erich-fromm-question\/","title":{"rendered":"Economic questions: the Erich Fromm Question\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of\u00a0political economy<\/a>\u00a0might have been, and what the relevance of that question might be today. There is a list of all posts in the series at the end of each entry. The\u00a0origin of this series is noted here.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

After the first two posts in this series, the topics have been chosen by me, and this is one of those. This series has been produced using what I describe as directed AI searches to establish positions with which I agree, followed by final editing before publication.<\/em><\/p>\n

Why have I included Erich Fromm in this series? The immediate reason is that I wrote a post yesterday, entitled 'What to do?<\/a>' Jacqueline read it and assumed I would reference Fromm - whom we have both read - rather than Voltaire, and so he featured in our conversations during the day. The result was that it became apparent that Fromm had to appear in this series for two reasons.<\/em><\/p>\n

The first is that he very obviously cared - and that is a key feature of my work now.<\/em><\/p>\n

The second is that he asked the key question: 'What is there to do about what is wrong?' That is fundamental because in a world where most supposed thinkers simply note issues, but do not go further to look for solutions, Fromm had the courage to do just that: he looked for answers. That is why he is here.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

\n

Erich Fromm<\/a> is often presented as a critic of capitalism, a psychoanalyst of consumer society, and a writer on alienation and fear. That is all true. But it misses the sharpest point of his work. Fromm believed that a diagnosis without a remedy is an evasion. The question he repeatedly returns to is not merely 'why are we sick?',\u00a0<\/i> but 'what do we do now?' <\/em>That question might be summarised as 'What to do?'<\/em><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In 'The Sane Society<\/i>, <\/a>To Have or To Be?'<\/i>, and elsewhere, Fromm argues that modern economic life systematically undermines the conditions for human flourishing.<\/p>\n

It replaces genuine freedom with market discipline.<\/p>\n

It replaces love with possession.<\/p>\n

It replaces meaning with status.<\/p>\n

And it replaces security with chronic uncertainty.<\/p>\n

He insists this is not a private tragedy; it is a structural failure. Societies that produce mass mental distress are not healthy societies, no matter how wealthy they appear.<\/p>\n

Fromm, therefore, forces political economy into the realm it too often tries hardest to avoid: ethics, mental health, and the purpose of life.<\/p>\n

Hence the<\/span> Erich Fromm Question: <\/b>If we can see that modern society is making people anxious, isolated and psychologically unwell, what are we going to do about it, <\/i>and why does our political economy seem incapable of even asking the question?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

\n

The refusal to ask the right question<\/b><\/p>\n

Fromm\u2019s first claim was brutal in its simplicity. He suggested that modern societies often treat symptoms as individual failures rather than social outcomes.<\/p>\n

Depression becomes a personal weakness.<\/p>\n

Anxiety becomes bad coping.<\/p>\n

Loneliness becomes a lifestyle.<\/p>\n

Burnout becomes a lack of resilience.<\/p>\n

Fromm insisted that we should reverse our questioning of causality. His suggestion was that if millions are suffering, the issue is not their inadequacy but the system\u2019s design. He argued that a society that normalises distress is not neutral but is organised in a way that generates distress.<\/p>\n

So 'what to do?'<\/em>\u00a0begins with a refusal: a refusal to accept that mass suffering is natural, inevitable, or private.<\/p>\n

A sane society must be designed<\/b><\/p>\n

Fromm\u2019s 'what to do?'<\/em>\u00a0is anchored in a radical proposition, which is that sanity is not merely psychological, it is social. A sane society is one that produces people who can love, reason, cooperate and feel secure enough to be free.<\/p>\n

That means sanity cannot be reduced to therapy. It is a political economy question. It depends on how:<\/p>\n