Exposing the Invisible Hand

The “invisible hand” is like a religious belief that the market has a mind and will of its own and will be ok if we just keep focused on our own self-interest. In other words, this invisible hand is out of our hands, we are unconscious of its operation. IT will just happen of its own accord. Below Arnsperger says we must move beyond such unconscious evolutionary forces and take responsibility to consciously create alternatives. And we have begun to do so with social democracy. But the enactions we’ve seen of it to date, still maintaining capitalism as its base, are just the initial stages of a much broader development that will supersede that economic base. And it is not moving toward any sort of State-run bureaucracy or centralized planning.

From Arnsperger’s blog post of 4/19/11:

“The previous post ended with a call for replacing blind evolution (which has driven the genesis and succession of socioeconomic systems up to today) with conscious evolution…. The recent history of the developed world, and in particular the emergence of social democracy between the two World Wars and especially after WWII, has shown quite clearly that we have reached a new stage -- a stage where the conscious design of mechanisms permitting free emergence has taken over from the older notion of Adam Smith's ‘invisible hand.’ Smith's vision involved the unconscious and un-designed emergence of mechanisms (e.g., the market) which allow you to realize your freedom if you're lucky enough to come out on the right side of those mechanisms. We need something more.

“Social democracy has been a first step in the direction of making the invisible hand more deliberate. I don't intend to argue that we should roll back those positive steps. Instead, we should push forward. The industrial-financial-capitalist version of social democracy which we are currently presented with as ‘the’ embodiment of a modern, progressive economy is actually just an initial stage of social democracy -- not its final achievement…. I want to make it very clear right at the outset that I am not -- I repeat: not -- going to argue for centralized planning or any other authoritarian device. The transition we need is as far removed from any sort of crypto-Soviet model as you could possibly want.”

Following is from an interview with Arnsperger and my commentary, both taken from a discussion thread on progressive economics at Integral Postmetaphysical Spirituality forum.

"The brilliant and diabolical logic of capitalism plays on the confusion between 'needs' and 'cravings.' That's why we run after consumption and accumulation. Consequently, it's a system that creates repetitive compulsions for most of us - in any case, for those who have the means to treat themselves to certain things - and that simultaneously creates structural inequalities."

This sounds like a Buddhist economic criticism, that craving is the cause of our suffering. And that this cause is facilitated by this particular economic system with the inevitable result in inequality. He goes on:

"One cannot do without the economy, but one can and one will have to do without capitalism. This existential crisis of the economy is a truly essential crisis of capitalism, the symptom of a profound malaise."

What then could possible replace our much vaunted capitalism that feeds our cravings and causes such suffering?

"I propose the implementation of three kinds of ethos. First, an ethics of willful simplicity, a return towards a much more frugal conviviality ... The second ethos: a radical democratization of our institutions, including our economic institutions, proceeding to the democratization of companies ... And third: an ethos of profound equalitarianism, going so far as 'a universal allocation,' that is, an unconditional base income paid to all citizens."

He argues that this change will not come from the top-down through political leaders but must be a people's movement from the bottom-up. We must take responsibility for our consumption and work toward and create democratic businesses which enact values such as a living wage. Only then will this filter into political legislative support. Part of this worldview change is moving from individualism to an examination of our autonomy.

"The general idea is that we must recreate a critical conviviality. Each person must personally conquer his autonomy; each person must do the work of de-conditioning himself; perform a self-critique of his own complicity with the system. That occurs through an anchoring in the locality and in power-sharing, in an ethos that I call neither communist nor communitarian, but rather a 'communalist' ethos that leads to willful simplicity and radical democratization that result in a relocalization of the economy."