Federal Capital (Paco Urondo Agency, published on 27 Buenos Aires Economico / 08/2010)
In another article we published in Buenos Aires Economic ("The economic and scholastic models) had outlined a critique of some economic knowledge, identified with the academic and business establishment, without stating what practice should be constructed as an alternative. The aim of this paper is a preliminary outline and outline the points of departure for the construction of economic knowledge linked to the concrete and practical activities engaged in processing social agents.
We begin our discussion by noting that the "removal" of economic discipline and practice of social production of knowledge explains the "social status and power" with which it has the "prestige" in other words, they get economists to move away vocabulary and lore. transformed, through the operation of removal, in a purely technocratic discipline whose access depends on the acquisition of a particular discourse and quite limited.
Holders of such "knowledge economy", while "elite group", are legitimized by widening the gap between representation and popular feelings and his own discursive practice, thus creating a vicious circle of feedback between legitimacy and isolation.
On the other hand, from a point of view "epistemological" is rather paradoxical to note that those same economic technocrats, while isolating the discursive field, making it "dark" to the layman, continually appealing to the "sense common " understood as a series of theoretical-political base and a priori, that predict a "natural state" of the social.
That common sense is not nothing but a certain "state" particular ideology of a particular society, the representations and notions of dominant groups, which have privileged access to distribution channels and communication of ideas.
This apparent contradiction between extreme closeness of the theoretical and alternative discourse of the vulgar forms of knowledge or "cualunque" building common sense (as exemplified by phrases such as "will said ... "" everyone knows ... "" for everyone, obviously ... "and others) reinforces the effect of removal of real and concrete problems-that is, political-spanning society.
Now, if the combination that gave strength to the economic scholasticism was composed of two main pillars, namely the "technical accuracy" and "predictive power", as exemplified in extreme mathematization of the discipline, the process is from critical cross capitalism since the beginning of the decade of 2000 to the present that was demolished in particular the second case.
With the downfall of the world's largest economy, and the snowball effect on all the capitalist metropolis closely tied to it falls the legitimacy conferred on the economic orthodoxy in terms of its "predictive power." Cancelled
this case by the facts themselves, what should be left over for the so-called "technical rigor? Since assuming such rigor would continue automatically accept the "scientific" economic science lies only on a series of syllogisms as closed as untestable, algebraic operations in effect without any connection to the "exterior" social. And there, almost in the realm of religion, where only continue to accept orthodoxy as a form of economic scholasticism.
other hand, should not prove why a striking phenomenon of critical, social and emerging crisis has an effect on a theoretical and academic field. This type of process has been given before in the history of human culture, involving the knowledge in all its forms.
In fact, the Argentine case was the enormous social crisis of 2001, which enabled, through the forms of political and institutional implications open for her, displacement neoliberal discourse only in the economic field and its gradual replacement by other voices within the theoretical field of the economy, displaced and silenced once marginal areas.
With all this under consideration and perspective viewing our specific social and historical conditions, what kind of economic knowledge, this is social, should result from a situated view towards national development thinking from a position of benefit and welfare for the popular sectors?
Obviously it would be a novel know, at least in the sense not to repeat, or directly to minimum-maximum-break- with the old points of departure for economic scholasticism and, to some extent at least, with the axioms of the old school of development.
Let us see more clearly with a specific case: the discussion of the inflation problem. It is clear that in considering and studying the long national history, we see that the people of Argentina has had a long tradition of struggle and demands on social rights. A notorious example is that to achieve the absolute imposition of the hegemony of big economic groups and the destruction of the industrialization process in place, national elites had to resort to bloody '76 coup, as a last resort solution to the problem of social discipline.
As of today, spokespeople for the establishment identified the inflation problem as excess demand and as a symptom of excessive "greed" of employees who constantly call for more resources, and "irresponsible and demagogic" State officials who squander state coffers towards indiscriminate popular consumption, precipitating with this behavior "vicious" a new hyperinflationary crisis. Prove that this vision is total and partial ideological consistency with the one that raised the exhaustion of the ISI in the middle 70s.
is logical that, with its long tradition and historical memory, the Argentine people rebuild their wage demands especially in this period of widespread economic boom, reaching the levels achieved before the advent of military dictatorship.
are two opposing views, permeated by a strong political dispute, which define in line two very different country models. This bid
who stand on the side of "scientific objectivity" confer legitimacy theoretical spokesmen economic groups and monopolies in their fight for the appropriation of the surplus generated by such a bonanza, seek to impose a direction and a particular national model, exacerbating the internal and external dependence, continually claiming "exhaustion" of the model, and its change by one more suited to their needs (of concentration and exclusion.)
Anyway, due to the excellent performance at macro level, it is difficult for economic scholastic find a specific point by which to justify its continued appeal to the impending apocalypse, running the whole length of the discussion to the more equitable distribution of inflation, and so hypocritical, resulting in the continued use of opportunistic arguments to hit the national government left, forcing thus the very critical situation "predicted" by these same spokesmen.
It is shown as the ideological bankruptcy of the national elite is total, so much left to the monopoly lowering communication line for the misguided leaders of the opposition.
Finally, by way of conclusion, we return to a more abstract and purely "epistemological" to indicate that the problem then would not, in our view, to claim for economic knowledge "predictive power" one, a priori, thus freeing in one movement of any need to "gurus" and "manochantas" economic.
The economic knowledge, while social knowledge, is valid for a people and cultural heritage, historical and, despite the redundancy, social. Cultural because it is inevitably linked to particularism of the conditions that produce it. Historical, because as it was generated and produced in those specific conditions, can and should be modified over time. And while social because it is produced by the staff of a company is only valid as at the service of the resolution and transformation of social structures and problems posed to the practice of these agents.
We begin our discussion by noting that the "removal" of economic discipline and practice of social production of knowledge explains the "social status and power" with which it has the "prestige" in other words, they get economists to move away vocabulary and lore. transformed, through the operation of removal, in a purely technocratic discipline whose access depends on the acquisition of a particular discourse and quite limited.
Holders of such "knowledge economy", while "elite group", are legitimized by widening the gap between representation and popular feelings and his own discursive practice, thus creating a vicious circle of feedback between legitimacy and isolation.
On the other hand, from a point of view "epistemological" is rather paradoxical to note that those same economic technocrats, while isolating the discursive field, making it "dark" to the layman, continually appealing to the "sense common " understood as a series of theoretical-political base and a priori, that predict a "natural state" of the social.
That common sense is not nothing but a certain "state" particular ideology of a particular society, the representations and notions of dominant groups, which have privileged access to distribution channels and communication of ideas.
This apparent contradiction between extreme closeness of the theoretical and alternative discourse of the vulgar forms of knowledge or "cualunque" building common sense (as exemplified by phrases such as "will said ... "" everyone knows ... "" for everyone, obviously ... "and others) reinforces the effect of removal of real and concrete problems-that is, political-spanning society.
Now, if the combination that gave strength to the economic scholasticism was composed of two main pillars, namely the "technical accuracy" and "predictive power", as exemplified in extreme mathematization of the discipline, the process is from critical cross capitalism since the beginning of the decade of 2000 to the present that was demolished in particular the second case.
With the downfall of the world's largest economy, and the snowball effect on all the capitalist metropolis closely tied to it falls the legitimacy conferred on the economic orthodoxy in terms of its "predictive power." Cancelled
this case by the facts themselves, what should be left over for the so-called "technical rigor? Since assuming such rigor would continue automatically accept the "scientific" economic science lies only on a series of syllogisms as closed as untestable, algebraic operations in effect without any connection to the "exterior" social. And there, almost in the realm of religion, where only continue to accept orthodoxy as a form of economic scholasticism.
other hand, should not prove why a striking phenomenon of critical, social and emerging crisis has an effect on a theoretical and academic field. This type of process has been given before in the history of human culture, involving the knowledge in all its forms.
In fact, the Argentine case was the enormous social crisis of 2001, which enabled, through the forms of political and institutional implications open for her, displacement neoliberal discourse only in the economic field and its gradual replacement by other voices within the theoretical field of the economy, displaced and silenced once marginal areas.
With all this under consideration and perspective viewing our specific social and historical conditions, what kind of economic knowledge, this is social, should result from a situated view towards national development thinking from a position of benefit and welfare for the popular sectors?
Obviously it would be a novel know, at least in the sense not to repeat, or directly to minimum-maximum-break- with the old points of departure for economic scholasticism and, to some extent at least, with the axioms of the old school of development.
Let us see more clearly with a specific case: the discussion of the inflation problem. It is clear that in considering and studying the long national history, we see that the people of Argentina has had a long tradition of struggle and demands on social rights. A notorious example is that to achieve the absolute imposition of the hegemony of big economic groups and the destruction of the industrialization process in place, national elites had to resort to bloody '76 coup, as a last resort solution to the problem of social discipline.
As of today, spokespeople for the establishment identified the inflation problem as excess demand and as a symptom of excessive "greed" of employees who constantly call for more resources, and "irresponsible and demagogic" State officials who squander state coffers towards indiscriminate popular consumption, precipitating with this behavior "vicious" a new hyperinflationary crisis. Prove that this vision is total and partial ideological consistency with the one that raised the exhaustion of the ISI in the middle 70s.
is logical that, with its long tradition and historical memory, the Argentine people rebuild their wage demands especially in this period of widespread economic boom, reaching the levels achieved before the advent of military dictatorship.
are two opposing views, permeated by a strong political dispute, which define in line two very different country models. This bid
who stand on the side of "scientific objectivity" confer legitimacy theoretical spokesmen economic groups and monopolies in their fight for the appropriation of the surplus generated by such a bonanza, seek to impose a direction and a particular national model, exacerbating the internal and external dependence, continually claiming "exhaustion" of the model, and its change by one more suited to their needs (of concentration and exclusion.)
Anyway, due to the excellent performance at macro level, it is difficult for economic scholastic find a specific point by which to justify its continued appeal to the impending apocalypse, running the whole length of the discussion to the more equitable distribution of inflation, and so hypocritical, resulting in the continued use of opportunistic arguments to hit the national government left, forcing thus the very critical situation "predicted" by these same spokesmen.
It is shown as the ideological bankruptcy of the national elite is total, so much left to the monopoly lowering communication line for the misguided leaders of the opposition.
Finally, by way of conclusion, we return to a more abstract and purely "epistemological" to indicate that the problem then would not, in our view, to claim for economic knowledge "predictive power" one, a priori, thus freeing in one movement of any need to "gurus" and "manochantas" economic.
The economic knowledge, while social knowledge, is valid for a people and cultural heritage, historical and, despite the redundancy, social. Cultural because it is inevitably linked to particularism of the conditions that produce it. Historical, because as it was generated and produced in those specific conditions, can and should be modified over time. And while social because it is produced by the staff of a company is only valid as at the service of the resolution and transformation of social structures and problems posed to the practice of these agents.
The author is a member Study Group of National Economy and Popular (GEENaP-Mendoza) www.geenap.com.ar (Paco Agency Urondo)
0 comments:
Post a Comment