On Monday the Dow Jones industrial average fell 634.76 points; the sixth-worst point decline for the Dow in the last 112 years and the worst drop since December 2008. Every stock in the S&P 500 index declined.
It is easy to blame bipartisan bickering for the impasse that led to Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the American debt, and in turn the vertiginous fall of the Dow. This bickering—this substitution of ideology for reason, of egotism for compassion and responsibility on the part of lawmakers—is a national disgrace; but while it failed to fix the problem, we must realize that it did not cause it. The cause—and potential for a significant renewal—lies much deeper.
So let’s allow ourselves to ask a fundamental question: what’s an economy for?
The real purpose of an economic system is to guarantee to every person in its circle the fundamentals of physical existence (food, clothing, shelter) and the tools of meaningful work so that they can get on with the business of living together and working out our common destiny. This was Gandhi’s vision, among others’. We can no longer afford to ignore him in this sector any more than we can ignore his spectacular contributions to peace and security.
By the time Gandhi’s thinking on the subject matured in his classic treatise, Hind Swaraj, or Indian Home Rule (1909), he saw that our present economic system is being driven by a dangerous motive: the multiplication of wants. Because these wants are artificial—being that they created by advertising—and can never be satisfied, it creates what economist David Korten has called a “phantom economy” of fantastic financial manipulations that of course can never endure.
We will never know real prosperity—where we acknowledge that we are much more than producer/consumers and can only be fulfilled when we discover a higher purpose—until we shift to another basis entirely, the fulfillment of needs. We have physical needs, to be sure, but also and more importantly social and even spiritual ones.
While this takes us beyond the domain of economics proper, a sound economy based on our real needs is the foundation. What, then, are the principles of that which has come to be known as Gandhian economics, and how could we implement them?
Arguably the most revolutionary feature of this system is the concept of trusteeship, which defines the relationship of a person to material goods—or, for that matter, any talents they can deploy. Borrowed from English law, it is the nonviolent equivalent of ownership: people regard themselves as trustees of their possessions for the good of their respective societies, rather than as owners for their own real or symbolic benefit (when you have more than you need, you are trying to impress others or yourself with your own importance).
Wherever an attitude of trusteeship is recognized—and clearly it is first of all a psychological, and only then a legal phenomenon—greed would find it difficult to take hold. We would no longer over-consume, no longer surrender our responsibility to corporations as the most efficient instruments for overconsumption and accumulation, no longer need to fight wars over inessentials, no longer ravish the planet in a vain search for happiness—the prospect is giddying.
The trick, of course, is how to bring about this shift. Reeducation at this depth is not easy, but it is any day easier than trying to stop overconsumption and exploitation while so many people still feel that happiness is something they can buy, and there is not enough to go around. No revolution, however violent, has managed to dispossess the wealthy of their wealth against their will; but extremely wealthy people (think of George Soros and a few others) who have cheerfully redistributed it when the concept of trusteeship took hold.
Trusteeship, like much of Gandhi’s thinking, falls in line with the wisdom delivered by scriptures East and West, that we are really not the owner of anything. Indeed it needs no scripture to tell us this, since the stark fact of life is that all we think we own can be taken away by any number of contingencies — and, let’s face it, will be so taken by the final contingency of death. Trusteeship, however difficult to achieve, liberates us psychologically from the existential insecurity that is driving us into this dead end of competition and greed.
Other features of Gandhi’s scheme are (material) simplicity, localism (svadeshi), the sanctity of “bread labour” (a phrase he got from John Ruskin), and nonviolence towards others and the earth itself. All came into play with his stellar program of spinning homespun cloth (khadi, or khaddar) that gave employment to otherwise idled millions (sound familiar?), united the country in a vast network of growers, spinners, weavers, and buyers, and, almost incidentally it seemed, broke the hold of the British Raj in India.
Today many experiments that could potentially provide one or another piece of this program are doing very well, thank you, around the world: community farms, local currencies, “transition towns” and so forth. One thing that would certainly help them coalesce into a real movement, making them a visible alternative to the “multiplication of wants” economy that’s collapsing around our ears, is a voluntary shift to trusteeship carried out by individuals at their own pace in their own applications. And what’s not doable about that—provided we stay clear of television long enough to repossess our minds?
Korten has advanced a brilliant three-part strategy: change the defining stories of the mainstream culture, create a new economic reality from the bottom up, and change the rules to support the values and institutions of the emergent new reality. Gandhian economics in general, and trusteeship in particular, would be a major enabling condition, working as it does within consciousness itself, for these great changes.
Monday’s debacle points out once again that forward-thinking people need to provide a “safe haven” – a plausible, attractive alternative – for every sector of the current system that’s showing signs of potentially terrifying collapse: security, education, healthcare, and of course the economy. Gandhi had eye-opening experiments we can learn from in all these areas, and what we’ve just sketched out would be a great place to start.
Admirable piece. But I do have one quibble with the opening. When one party wants to provide us with health care, decent education, and a comfortable retirement, and the other party would rather destroy the US economy than give an inch on any of those things; when one party ran on “jobs” then revealed that their approach to jobs is taking them away from cops, teachers and firefighters – well, that’s not “bipartisan” bickering. The substitution of ideology for reason is certainly endemic in Washington, but let’s not pretend it’s equally widespread on both sides of the aisle.
That’s an unfortunate point of view you have. The truth is that “the other side” also wants those things but disagrees that increasing compulsion over others while decreasing choice is the way to get there.
The demonization of others and of opposing viewpoints is exactly what Ghandi was against. It’s unfortunate that you are undermining what he stood for by demonizing others and setting up a false caricature of them.
I fully agree with the paragraph that begins “the real purpose of an economic system…
This idea needs to be repeated whenever one gets a chance to do so.
I actually disagree with that. It’s a nice sentiment, but almost totally meaningless and not helpful in a practical way. I’d rephrase to:
“An economic system is what results as people seek to meet the needs of their physical existence (food, clothing, shelter) and acquire the tools for meaningful work. Good economic systems allow people to get on with the business of living and work out their individual destinies in harmony with others.”
It is endemic on both sides. Both sides have worked to stifle debate, and both sides benefit from and promote an economic system based off of greed, exploitation and economic violence. Neither party has an interest in morality or reforms so much as they do promoting the issues of their base and their chances of re-election.
But thats alright, because we already know the solution. It isn’t through politicians or politics, but through changing ourselves; committing to buying fair trade goods, committing to shopping locally, to doing what we can to not use credit/go into debt and to producing as much as we can, to self-sufficiency, simplicity, and morality. We are the institute of change.
Actually, David Korten is not an economist. He has a degree in Psychology and then went on to work in economic development primarily in South East Asia. He discovered that many well meaning NGOs were actually screwing up local people power. He and his wife discovered that local farmers had beautifully designed irrigation systems that were somehow not counted in the official government irrigation systems. So, of course, economic hit men convinced various governments to implement top down expensive badly conceived systems taking away local control and, of course, sinking countries into debt. From that experience he wrote his first book “When Corporations Rule the World.” I would also suggest reading his brilliant “The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community”. He is also co-editor of “Yes” Magazine.
MontanaMaven,
Thanks for pointing that out about David’s background. I guess he’s an economist in the sense Gandhi was. (And he liked the article!)
Give us your contact info if you’d like to stay in touch: info@mettacenter.org. Same for everyone!
What you are describing as trusteeship is a very old tradition in biblical and christian scripture known as stewardship.
“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.”
The Christian point of view – as amply established by Christ and especially in his parables- has always been that the earth is the Lord’s and we are to be wise stewards over that part apportioned to us.
It is not anathema to “ownership” in that it understands that the tragedy of the commons is a result of the failure to understand the benefits of ownership, but it qualifies ownership with the understanding that that which one owns belongs to the Lord, and is therefore to be used in doing good (which means caring for one another, the poor, etc).
I like the notion of trusteeship, but prefer the idea/nomenclature of stewardship.
As usual, Michael Nagler is spot-on, and I love how he writes. On Tuesday evening, 8/9, I was with friends eating dinner and talking about this terribly dysfunctional current economic system and how we can transform our society, and the world as a whole, with a transformation of nonviolent consciousness (4 of 5 of us around the table have spent years in nonviolent movements). All 5 of us are seeking in our own ways to live simply, to reduce our wants, and to serve the needs of a wider circle of women, men, and children. What Michael Nagler proposes is simple and yet quite challenging. But I believe it is possible. Kenneth Boulding used to say, “What is, is possible.” Millions of human beings around the globe are seeking to live the consciousness that Michael espouses. Let’s just see how far we can go with this. The alternative is ghastly to contemplate. Richard
Namaste,
A well written article, you did capture the total essence of gram swaraj.
This model was actually meant for the rural India, where there are more diversified jobs, and different economic and cultural variations throughout the country. This thus creates problems for unified structuring and hence creating issues of authority and resource distribution.This lead to creating the concept of localisation.
Its interesting to find your trust in this model and its application to the western economy. If i am not wrong Western culture is far less diverse, thus may not need a level of localisation to the extent of village economy.
Jayendra,
Namaste, and thank you. Yes, even for India Gandhi said she would “have to decentralize many things” if she were to remain nonviolent. Making the basic shift from wants to needs would greatly facilitate localization in both countries.
Michael