sign in sign up
<<
Home , Julian Simon, Uneconomic growth

www.ecologicalcitizen.net RESPONSE

Reply to Troy Vettese’s ‘Against steady-state ’

Editor-in-Chief’s note: This is a response to an article by Troy Vettese, titled ‘Against steady- state economics’, that was published in our special issue on (Vol 3 Suppl B 2020). It is modified very slightly from the original response, which was posted at theSteady State About the author Herald on 18 March 2020: https://steadystate.org/category/steady-state-herald/. Herman is an emeritus professor at the School of teady-staters are used to being uneconomic growth, threatening the of University of attacked by right-wing neo-liberals. overwhelming abundance required for the Maryland in the US. SAttacks from left-wing neo-Marxists advent of the ‘new socialist man’. are new, and require a reply. To put the This unexpected emergence of un- Citation matter simply: Marxists hate capitalism; , plus the economic Daly H (2020) Reply to Troy they mistakenly think that a steady-state failures and enormous political repressions Vettese’s ‘Against steady- economy is inherently capitalist; Vettese of twentieth century communist states, state economics’. The is a Marxist; ergo, Vettese hates a steady- plus the temporary success of growthist Ecological Citizen 4: 79–82. state economy. capitalism, plus the intellectual discrediting Keywords To spell this out let’s begin by giving of dialectical materialism and historical Marx due credit for emphasizing the determinism – all this has left the poor Ecological economics reality of class exploitation under all orphaned Marxists without an ideological heretofore existing economic systems, home. As their red house collapsed, the including especially capitalism, although green house down the street began to excluding future idealized communism. look attractive. After all, the greens do Communism arrives after the Revolution recognize major problems with capitalism, in which the dictatorship of the proletariat the big enemy, even if they are problems will seize control of the enormous powers that Marxists have failed to recognize. So of production that it was the historical they paint themselves green and hyphenate role of capitalist growth to produce. With their name, calling themselves, not eco- overwhelming abundance bourgeois man Marxists, but less specifically ‘eco- will be objectively freed from scarcity- socialists’, hoping to appeal to reasonable induced greed and acquisitiveness, giving leftists in addition to fellow neo-Marxists. birth to ‘the new socialist man’, and the They aim to revive moribund Marxism by Marxist eschatology of heaven on Earth. usurping the place of ecological economics. History has not been kind to this Marxist Many greens, eager for allies, welcome the fairy tale, except for the enduring fact of eco-Marxists and accept the cuckoo eggs inequality under capitalist growthism. that they deposit in the green nest in the Socialist growthism also had serious hope that the hatchlings will be more green problems, but leave that aside. There is, than red. Steady-state economists certainly however, a new problem with growthist need friends and allies, but reading Vettese economies that Marxists did not foresee has reminded me of an aphorism my in their eagerness to appropriate the mother taught me - ‘better alone than in abundance that it was capitalism’s bad company’. historically determined role to create. Specifically, Vettese has deposited Growth in a finite and entropic world now three Marxist cuckoo eggs in the steady- produces ‘illth’ (depletion and pollution) state nest: (1) ‘markets are all bad’; (2) ‘central faster than wealth, thus becoming planning is all good’. On these two Vettese

The Ecological Citizen Vol 4 No 1 2020 79 Reply to Troy Vettese’s ‘Against steady-state economics’ www.ecologicalcitizen.net

is clear and emphatic: “the only way to First, since the market does not count stop the drive for endless economic growth the cost of the physical growth into, and is to undo the necessity to participate in displacement of, the very ecosphere on markets. That is, the conscious political which the economy and life itself depend, control over production and distribution we must impose macro-constraints on the through central planning is the only way physical scale of the economy relative to the to stop and reverse capitalism’s ceaseless ecosphere. This is a new problem. Second, a incorporation of the natural world” (pp 37– problem long recognized but not solved, is 8). (3) ‘ is an evil fiction’, that a capitalist market economy generates as demonstrated by Julian Simon. Here extreme inequality in the distribution Vettese gets confused – if one accepts of income and wealth. A direct solution Julian Simon’s view that there is no need is to constrain the inequality between “A specific policy to stop the drive for endless economic a minimum and a maximum income, for achieving both growth, then whence the necessity to supplemented by a wealth and inheritance abolish nature-incorporating markets tax. Do eco-Marxists advocate limiting the physical limits to and establish central planning? Vettese’s range of income inequality by a maximum growth, and for defence of 3 undercuts his arguments for 1 as well as a minimum income? raising public revenue and 2. A specific policy for achieving both to help pay for a A few more words on each cuckoo egg are physical limits to growth, and for raising minimum income, in order. public revenue to help pay for a minimum (1) Markets are All Bad. The Market with income, is the cap-auction-trade system is the cap-auction- a capital ‘M’ is indeed a poor master, and for basic resources. Vettese totally opposes trade system for should be demoted to ‘markets’ with a cap-auction-trade because it makes use of basic resources.” small ‘m’, which can be good servants. markets. How unfair of the auctioneer to Marxists tried to completely abolish all sell to the highest bidder instead of my more markets, along with money, in the early deserving nephew! Also putting a days following the Russian revolution, and on the free gifts of nature (like carbon?) substitute direct physical requisitioning of is crude and immoral! But free gifts can resources and goods by central planners. also be scarce and require rationing. These This was the period of War Communism. It preciously purist sensitivities lead Vettese was a failure, soon replaced by Lenin’s New to oppose any use of markets. No markets Economic Policy, which restored significant means no exchange, no , no need reliance on markets, although not The for money, no specialization, no division Market. Today all countries, including of labour. Well, who is going to abolish the remaining communist ones, rely on markets, and centrally plan the production, markets to a significant degree, usually allocation, and distribution of everything? constrained by elements of collective Not Troy Vettese and his fellow pretenders action. Indeed, socialist economic theorists, who don’t have a clue, but ‘the new socialist such as Oskar Lange in his On the Economic man’ who is still being materialized in the Theory of Socialism, have long shown how Marxist dialectical womb of history! markets can serve collective goals as well Markets are necessary, but not sufficient. as individualistic ones. In addition to offering macro-policies to So much for ignored twentieth century correct the market’s scale and distribution economic history. What about twenty- failures, steady-state economics also first century economic policy? Ecological emphasizes that goods can be physically economists recognize that we live in a non-rival as well as rival, and legally non- capitalist market economy, like it or not. excludable as well as excludable. Market It is our historically given starting point. allocation works only for rival and excludable Trying to wipe the slate clean with the goods. Non-rival and non-excludable goods bloody shirt of Revolution is a very bad cannot be efficiently or fairly allocated by idea. Better to constrain the individualistic markets and require planning and collective capitalist market by two collective limits. action at a more micro-level.

80 The Ecological Citizen Vol 4 No 1 2020 www.ecologicalcitizen.net Reply to Troy Vettese’s ‘Against steady-state economics’

(2) Central Planning is All Good. Given that exchange value, would be the only criterion macro-limits on scale and distribution, for the production of goods and services. plus micro-intervention in the allocation Use-value as judged mostly by non-users – of non-market goods require considerable what could possibly go wrong? planning, why bother to defend any role With so much effort wasted on attempting at all for markets? Why not centrally plan to plan the allocation of market goods, there production and distribution of everything will be little capacity left to plan the use ‘for the good of society’, as advocated by of true public goods, to avoid the tragedy Vettese? First, remember the failed Soviet of the commons resulting from open experiment with War Communism and access exploitation of rival goods, and the Collectivization of agriculture. Second, larcenous market enclosure of non-rival consider a thought experiment. goods such as knowledge and information. Imagine the consequences of rival market Eco-Marxists expect that as the transition Most objections goods (food, clothing and shelter, plus a moves forward, more products and “ whole lot more) being freely distributed, services critical for meeting fundamental to market allocation according to the will of the citizens, as eco- human needs would be freely distributed, would disappear Marxists imagine. The democratic will of according to the democratic will of the if the underlying the citizens is to be expressed by voting. citizens effected by the central planners. inequality of How much shall we produce? Citizens Without markets (supply and demand, vote (or does a bureaucrat decide?). How prices, and, yes, profit), there could be no wealth and income much of that steel will go to the production self-employment. No one could identify a distribution were of, say, wood screws, for example, as needed good or service and make a living by limited by cap- opposed a million other uses? The citizens taking the initiative to provide it. Everyone auction-trade vote again. Of the wood screws, how many would be a salaried employee of the state, will be round head, how many flat head giving the state monopsony power in the or ecological tax countersunk, slot head, or Phillips head? labour market and stifling initiative. reform, and if the How many cadmium-plated; how many Most objections to market allocation aggregate scale of chrome-plated? And some screws are would disappear if the underlying inequality throughput of energy made of brass or , not steel. And of wealth and income distribution were and materials were for each type of screw, how many of each limited by cap-auction-trade or ecological length and diameter? And who shall receive tax reform, and if the aggregate scale of restricted to some how many of each type? The citizens throughput of energy and materials were level approximating robustly and democratically vote again and restricted to some level approximating ecological again as conditions change, although most ecological . Instead of directly sustainability. have no idea of the myriad special uses of correcting excessive throughput scale, and ” different types of screw, and may not even excessive distributional inequality, which know which end of a screwdriver to hold. of course get reflected in market prices Meanwhile those people who actually and allocation, eco-Marxists just attack use screws and know their uses are not market allocation itself, as if underlying able to ‘vote’ with their money in markets scale and distribution problems could be and thereby convey reliable information to solved by breaking the mirror that reflects producers about what mix of the infinitely them. What are eco-Marxist policies for many types of screw is most needed, and directly limiting throughput scale and would be most profitable to produce. Instead distributional inequality? If they don’t like we have all citizens spending absurd cap-auction-trade and distribution limits, amounts of their time ‘democratically’ or ecological tax reform, then let them voting, mostly about things they don’t suggest something better, but preferably understand, while those with the most not the Revolution, the Singularity, the information about actual use-values Second Coming or the advent of the New of screws are ‘disenfranchised’ by the Socialist Man. absence of markets. Yet eco-Marxists claim (3) Malthusianism is an Evil Fiction. that in a , use-value, not Marx’s hatred for Malthus is well known

The Ecological Citizen Vol 4 No 1 2020 81 Reply to Troy Vettese’s ‘Against steady-state economics’ www.ecologicalcitizen.net

and continues today. For all his faults it is and will likely get kicked out of the green hard to find a historically more influential nest, exposing Vettese as more red than figure than Thomas Robert Malthus. green. Vettese accuses steady-state In addition to his enormous influence economists, specifically me, of having on Marx, as someone to be opposed, he ignored Julian Simon’s critique. “Moreover, was the key influence recognized by the neo-liberal Julian Simon developed a both Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles powerful critique of environmentalism in Darwin in their independently developed the 1980s, which Daly has not responded theory of natural selection. Malthus’s to” (p 35). Actually I published critical theory of under-consumption also greatly reviews of two of Simon’s books, and do not influenced John Maynard Keynes’ theory have space here to repeat my response, so of unemployment. Needless to mention refer Vettese back to what he overlooked the whole neo-Malthusian birth control (Daly, 1982; 1984). and planned parenthood movement. For In conclusion, Vettese has taken me as Vettese, however, Malthusianism is merely representative of all ecological or steady- the ‘false’ idea that resource scarcity and state economists, and that is not fair to overpopulation are real. For Marx poverty many in that group whose thinking is quite was caused only by social relations of class independent of mine, or goes beyond it, exploitation, and he rejected any cause some of whom may call themselves ‘eco- stemming from nature as undermining the socialists’. Likewise, I am afraid that I have call for Revolution. Marx’s anti-Malthusian taken Vettese as a representative figure, denial of limits and which is not fair to other Marxists or eco- demographic pressure continue in Vettese socialist of various stripes, some of whom and the faithful band of eco-neo-Marxists. (e.g., John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett) Curiously Vettese’s modern anti- I have benefitted from reading, regardless Malthusian champion is the late Julian of differences. n Simon, a staunch neoclassical economist References of the most cornucopian variety, who Daly H (1982) Review of . Bulletin of vigorously opposed environmentalism. the Atomic Scientists January: 39–42. This third cuckoo egg (which is Daly H (1984) Review of Julian Simon and Herman contradictory to the first two, as noted Kahn’s The Resourceful Earth. Environment September earlier) seems to have hatched prematurely 25–8.

Show your support for ecocentrism by signing the Statement of Commitment to Ecocentrism

Read and sign it here: http://is.gd/ecocentrism

82 The Ecological Citizen Vol 4 No 1 2020