“Ideas notebook – Austin Williams”
Date posted: 15 September 10, 11:00
By Austin Williams
We asked Austin Williams to comment on his current work and ideas that have influenced him…
Which of your own ideas have you been thinking about most recently?
The idea that progress is a universal, not a relative concept. It’s not exactly a new idea as Marx and Mill got there a long time before me, but it’s worth reclaiming. I’m working through my understanding that overcoming natural barriers and defending political autonomy; material improvement, liberty and labour efficiency are fundamental to moving society forward.
What idea of someone else has made most impact on you recently?
The Big Society and its promotion of ‘localism’ has exercised my mind greatly – not in a good way, you understand. If we want to be politically-informed, critical, opinionated, truly engaged, and genuinely active citizens – in the sense that we become subjects rather than objects of history – then we have to move beyond local concerns.
What is the most important book/article of ideas that everyone should read and why?
There are many but I’ve just finished reading Ferraris For All: In defence of economic progress by Daniel Ben-Ami which is a left-wing challenge to what the author describes as ‘growth scepticism’. As we enter the new age of austerity, he says, ‘the temptation will be to focus on curbing consumption rather than raising production’. Arguing for ‘more’ is an inspirational starting point.
And finally, each year we ask everyone involved – audiences as well as speakers – one question. Charles Masterman, Liberal Party politician and journalist, asked in his book The Condition of England 100 Years Ago: “What will the future make of the present?” What is your answer to this?
Unfortunately, future generations will not thank us for sustainability and the precautionary principle – that constantly tell us to rein in experimentation and innovation, allegedly, for their benefit. Imagine what we would have thought of the Victorians if they had environmentally risk-assessed the potential of their age – industrialization, motorized transport and non-renewable power in order to prioritise nature and ‘save’ future generations.
Further information
Austin Williams is director of the Future Cities Project, founder of the Architecture & Design Winter School and producer at NBS TV. He is the author of The Enemies of Progress and is currently writing Better Cities: Better Life. He runs the Bookshop Barnies at Foyles and has written for a range of magazines and newspapers: from The Times Literary Supplement to Top Gear, from New Humanist to The Tablet.
Links
He appears with George Ferguson and Jon Turney in After Utopia: Visioning the future, 19 September 2010, 13.00-14.00, Watershed Media Centre. Full details here.
Responses
Comments
If you would like to subscribe to our RSS Comments feed, please click on the orange XML logo below (click here to read more about our RSS feeds).
** Should you wish to retract a comment, or if you experience technical difficulties, please email us at: ideas@gwebusinesswest.co.uk. We reserve the right to delete posts containing offensive language or content.
September 21st, 2010 at 12:16 am
[...] of the Future Cities Project and a fellow spiked contributor, has mentioned Ferraris for All in an article for the Bristol Festival of Ideas website. var fbShare = {url: [...]
September 22nd, 2010 at 1:38 am
I believe that growth skepticism is a very different phenomenon of sorts and Daniel Ben-Ami’s book, entitled “Feraris for All”, can be an intellectual weapon of choice in the real world. How does the book withstand the (unfair) criticisms over his attitude against the bashing of bankers? It is a different story, really. Why is Ben-Ami avoiding responsibility for standing pat on somebody in the financial sector?
As fo the idea of austerity, there is a justification exists in the minds of most people that “the temptation will be to focus on curbing consumption rather than raising production”. More on my comments later…
September 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 am
My question will be: “How does the book withstand the criticisms over his attitude against the bashing of bankers?” I stand corrected. More on my comments later.
September 22nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
As I mentioned earlier today (Philippine time), my concern here is that excessive politicking pertaining growth skepticism is a crux of the matter, with the aspects of free-market capitalism have strenghtened their (philosopical & ideological) connection with the general need for economic growth. Is it really misanthropic to talk about growth skepticism? Does Daniel Ben-Ami know that well?
I do not understand how come is he speaking about this when he still defends personalities at work, especially in the financial sector! This is insane, heaven forbid! That is really unfair, I say.
The bias, I believe, is rooted in his journalistic experience in economics, politics, etc. He never even mentions the M word. People around the world like me can tell you that. It is called “the manufaturing sector” (or, more broadly, the industrial sector).
As I read one of the comments in Ben-Ami’s write-up a week ago in the commentary section of the Guardian (U.K.) newspaper’s website, the banks don’t like it, requiring years of investment, and hiring people with experience in the industrial sector, especially manufacturing, not spreadsheet jockeys who do the pumping and dumping. There is also a lot of other stuff that this whole sector really needs.
The dependence on the services sector in industrialized countries would prove to be unrealistic, especially because the financial sector has failed to understand how its consequences could emerge despite the ability of mainly American-style capitalism to adapt to its advantage. Again, I will write more of my comments later about the book by Daniel Ben-Ami.
September 23rd, 2010 at 4:13 am
As I mentioned in the second part of my comments about Daniel Ben-Ami’s book, the increasing dependence on the services sector in industrialized countries would prove to be unrealistic, especially with regards to the financial sector.
Just remember that capitalism, mainly of Anglo-American variety, is not only about making money but also about power – from both philosopical and ideological standpoint, that is. And can those people regard the ideas brought about especially by communism and socialism, also? I am not sure, but I shall write-up on this later.
The varying opinions about the state of the international economy is as complex as a boardroom meeting on a (big) dining table, isn’t it? And too much politics exist into the minds of ideologues of various views and agendas speaking on behalf of ordinary people around the world like me.
Are they defensive of the merits of capitalism? Or are they merely opposed to it? Which ones? Can you tell the truth about the existence of growth skepticism behind the agenda currently? At least I cannot tell much on this further, but I will see. It will going to be an very intense discussion on social and economic issues – and different sorts of ideologues, including libertarians or what I call libertarian-Marxists, are clawing at each other for power, philosopically, ideologically, politically, economically, etc.
I will write soon on the geopolitical merits of capitalism. Any suggestions?
September 24th, 2010 at 4:08 am
And by the way: Does anybody meets economics professor named Ha-Joon Chang based at a university in the U.K? He will do what he can to promote a book (mainly) about capitalism, especially of Anglo-American origin.
Please be patient with the discussion about the geopolitical merits of the so-called “free-market capitalism”, OK? Thank you very much.
September 24th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Today (Philippines time), I like to write my own message very clearly about the broad aspects of growth skepticism which do exist in the minds of some people who advocate the misanthropic ideas that lead to disturbing implications on past, present, and future policies in various developed & developing countries around the world – and that means they would have negative consequences on the daily lives of ordinary people, including me.
Of course, you don’t know how real those ideas are, would you? What about their motivations that drive such ideas? Is it really worse to speak about the how, the why.. stuff like that? I am not sure. But I am not going to give up in knowing about the existence of a philosopical and ideological phenomenon called growth skepticism that makes us wondering how does the idea goes exactly. Only time will tell about that sort of misanthropic phenomenon.
Daniel Ben-Ami’s book, entitled Feraris For All: In defence of economic progress, is just one of the books that indicate the negative effects of growth skepticism have on people’s attitudes toward economic growth, social progress, scientific & techonological ideas, public governance & safety, environmental conservation & protection, improvements in energy, communications & transportation, and a lot more.
What people like me don’t realise the aspects of a misanthropically philosopical and ideological phenomenon, however, is that the ideologues are fighting over how to tackle the issues pertaining growth skepticism that is detrimental to both developed and developing countries. Am I correct to point out how did this happen? It’s a complex thing, I think. More on my write-up later about growth skepticism, the geopolitical aspects of “free-market capitalism”, too much politics pertaining socio-economic issues, and more.
P.S.: Don’t forget to add about the complexities of China-bashing and more. Thank you again.
September 25th, 2010 at 1:03 am
There are activists (especially libertarians, I believe) who came to shed light on issues pertaining to growth skepticism – and it would be ashamed to advocate any sort of ideas that are not well tuned to reality, especially when confronting a philosopical and ideological phenomenon as I mentioned.
It is not easy for them to make ideas out of a differently libertarian abstract because it arouses misunderstanding over how to solve problems affecting not only social and economic development, but also environmental conservation & protection, public governance & safety, scientific & technological ideas, improvements in energy, communications & transportation, and more. I think the libertarian (and libertarian-Marxists) activists have lied to the people who really needed help.
Certainly, the so-called “neo-liberals” have a motivation to pursue free-market ideas that come at the expense of social & economic progress. That will come later.
September 25th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Correction: it should be noted that “the libertarian (and libertarian-Marxist) activists have lied to the people who really need help”. Thanks.
I will write further about the broad phlosopical & ideological phenomenon of growth skepticism and more – soon.
September 27th, 2010 at 6:56 am
The geopolitical merits of capitalism, especially of the Anglo-American variety, deserves a careful study of political & economic events – before intellectual figures and the media exploit the idea that capitalism is far superior to socialism or communism (or whatever that mean).
I cannot tell the quotations from former U.K. prime minister, Magaret Thatcher, who claimed “there is no alternative to markets”, but I suspect that the ideas brought about by communism or socialism and the like will emerge as alternatives to mainly Anglo-American capitalism. These will come out later in my write-up series.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
The existence of a market economy is always different because (why?) there are different sorts of people doing things to bankroll the case for capitalism.
Basically, there are economic subsystems that differently operate in various nations of the world: the Anglo-American capitalism, Chinese capitalism (a philosopical & ideological mix of communism and Western capitalism), Indian capitalism, Russian capitalism and what not.
Which ones can you choose? Better look at the pros and cons before selecting these philosopical & ideological subsystems. Otherwise, you pick the wrong one not appropriate for a particular country. Would it be possible to set up a credible legal, political, social and economic institutions appropriate enough for a particular country, especially in the Third World? Think about it, please. It is your decision.
I may not favor the mainly Anglo-American capitalist type of economic system, yet I must be convinced that the more careful a particular system works well for a particular country, the more appropriately arranged the legal, political, social economic systems in place, whether in an industrialized nation or a developing one. Any suggestions, please? Remember: These different economic subsystems related to market economics (of different countries) must be recognized for reference purposes ONLY. Thank you.
I will write more soon.
P.S.: Do not expect excessive politics to persist in my writings because I am here to understand carefully how a particular economic system works well from both a philosopical and ideological perspective. Thank you very much again.
October 5th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I am back once again for my unbiased write-up this week (Philippines time). I would like to note that the transition from a market economy to a more prosperous social & economic system is inevitable (or is it?), but I disagree with Daniel Ben-Ami’s call for a socialistic, Marxist kind of system in which people around the world including me might accept in the future – an alternate future to be assumed.
I try to make it clear that there is a difference between capitalism and socialism in a real world perspective. I think it is up to the person who can keep track on the philosopical and ideological phenomenon because it is too early to tell about the differences in the political, social & economic set-up. Would it be hard to predict which ones can work for a particular country? He or she has to look more closely at different systems of governance, different cultures, different mindsets, different sentiments, etc. by following political and economic events – or anything else matters.
It’s confusing to accept those kinds of social & economic systems because they are certainly not perfect in one stroke of imagination, but I must admit that such structures CAN be adaptable (and well suited) to a particular country around the world (anyway, does anyone remember communism, an ideological system that has gone antiquated or reformed recently – to say the least – after years of political repression, economic mismanagement, cult personality, social conformity, etc.?).
It is a very difficult proposition – and hardly acceptable to the public – that the emphasis on higher economic growth is forthcoming, because, right now, there are difficulties persist to this day and the resulting factors that stand in the way of fulfilling it, including various signs of growth skepticism.
Perhaps people need to rethink about the way bashing bankers and other different factors that are made to fit the sentiments in especially humiliating those in the financial sector.
I shall look at the sentiments created or voiced upon by government officials and the general public about the dependence on the financial sector’s role in shaping capitalism today. That will come later on.