Subscribe to Sunday Letters

Updated 18th May, 2025. The original article can be viewed here

As I observe this world of people, it seems that moral disengagement is active everywhere, not least among politicians and corporate leaders. In the workplace, for example, many choose to ignore immoral and unethical practices. We put our heads down, blinkers on, and just get on with the work when we know very well that what is going on is unacceptable. For example, when a colleague is mistreated by management or when underhanded tactics are used to cheat a customer. To speak up is to expose oneself and risk too much. Recognising this, Albert Bandura cites Thomas Gabor (1994)¹, who wrote that there is a “pervasiveness of moral disengagement by people of all statuses in all walks of life.”

In his 2002 paper², Badura wrote that given the many mechanisms for disengaging moral control, civilised life requires, in addition to humane personal standards, safeguards built into social systems that uphold compassionate behaviour and renounce cruelty. We like to think of ourselves as rational and caring, that these attributes are basic aspects of humanity, but I'm not so sure. Moral principles seem to be present in society, but they are often manipulated for nefarious ends, and we don't seem to notice. In international affairs, these standards and safeguards seem to be absent in large part. In everyday life, it's a see-sawing between what we can get away with and what we can't, or, put more politically, what we perceive as acceptable and not.

What is rational anyway–does anyone know? It implies that we can be objective, that we can stand back from a situation and be independent of it in our judgement. But, of course, we can't because we have unconscious bias built in. At the same time, I think we know deep down, even if the conditioning of culture says otherwise, what is right moral behaviour and what is not. Why would any human being who counts the needs of others with the same weight as their own drop bombs on civilians just to hit a handful of so-called terrorists? Where is empathy and compassion here? Something must happen psychologically to allow us to make this leap to mass murder. Distance from the blood and tears helps us dehumanise and justify the worst of actions.

State propaganda likes to tell us what a terrorist looks like, and we soak it up, ignoring the finer detail. Why do young men join paramilitary organisations? Answer: The injustice and the brutalisation of their people force them into it, and we have ample evidence for this. Post Bloody Sunday, 30th January 1972, when British soldiers shot 26 unarmed civilians at a human rights march in the Bogside, Derry, the IRA saw the largest number of young people join their ranks. Almost 60 years before, the British Government considered James Connolly, Padraig Pearse and their fellow Irish freedom fighters as terrorists. The British later executed fourteen men by firing squad in Kilmainham jail for their part in the 1916 Easter Rising. But to the Irish, they were heroes, and it gave us the seed of freedom from British occupation. Soon, by the way, that process will be complete.

With the ongoing murder and destruction of the Palestinian way of life, political figures run for cover. They show themselves as having no moral courage, no backbone. Take Kier Starmer, for example, the former human rights lawyer (can you believe it!) and current British Prime Minister. His government has overseen the sale of arms to Israel to the tune of $169m in the three months following the Labour government’s partial suspension of arms. The revoking of arms licences was, of course, merely a smoke screen to hide their obligations to the Israelis.

And what about the Conservative opposition in the UK? Shadow Foreign Secretary Andrew Mitchell criticised the revoking of arms licences, saying that he “feared” the decision would “offend Israel”. You can read about it in the British House of Commons Library. It seems that causing offence to Israel weighed more on the minds of some people than the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Kill who you like, just don't offend anyone. It is an insane position.

It's hard to comprehend the degree of destruction that has taken place in Gaza. What was a thriving community, albeit effectively a giant concentration camp, the Israelis have laid to waste. Why has the international community allowed this? Is the safety and welfare of our fellow human beings not of primary concern here? Why is it that politicians put “saving face” or other forms of self-preservation ahead of the welfare of people? We witness outrage from British and US governments over Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and zero outrage over Israel's complete annihilation of life and property in Gaza?

My only conclusion here is that those responsible–the Israeli government, the Israeli people who support the annihilation, international corporations, politicians, and arms manufacturers–care more for profit and profile than for human life. They have forgone their humanity and reduced the rights and needs of those who suffer to insignificance. The Israelis regard Palestinians as “human animals”, when ironically it appears the Israelis have assumed a level of existence below that of animals. Some lives are apparently more valuable than others.

***

I deliver lectures on ethics to business, social science and psychology students at undergrad and post-grad levels. It is a topic that perhaps I did not pay too much attention to when I was studying. But since discovering the work of people like Erich Fromm and Albert Bandura, I began taking a firm interest in ethics. According to Bandura, without a sound personal and societal moral and ethical position that accounts for the needs of all, we are prone to act reprehensibly and then find justification for it.

Our ethical position and our view of the rights and dignity of others are the basis of our relationships in business, politics, the workplace, sport, broader society and personal life, or, at least, they should be. Without ethics, all bets are off, everything is permissible, and the most heinous acts are allowed and encouraged, even in the name of God. Ego identity is very clearly wrapped up in this act of psychological and emotional gymnastics of selective moral disengagement.

It's not only governments that forgo their moral principles, though. In his book Everybody Does It, Thomas Gabor states that so-called respectable citizens account for a large proportion of crime, including theft, fraud, tax evasion, assault, sex offences, business scams, political and corporate crime, looting and vigilantism. Ever take stationery from the office for personal use? Have you ever walked away as bullies intimidated a classmate for fear that you'd receive the same? Or maybe you failed to intervene when a father was verbally abusing his child in public. The point is, we all behave in ways that, after the fact, we feel we should have acted differently. Or maybe we find justification for what happened, or convince ourselves that there was nothing we could do.

Selective moral disengagement is often a necessary strategy where the needs of one ethnic group are not only subjugated but also oppressed by another, often more powerful group. The phenomenon has been widely studied in the field of psychology, for example, in sport³, business⁴, and most notably perhaps, more generally by Albert Bandura in 2003⁵.

Bandura dedicated his career to understanding the complexities of human behaviour, and one of his most significant contributions is his research on moral agency. It sheds light on the cognitive processes we employ to protect our self-image, to preserve our sense of self and justify our actions. These studies point to the intricate mechanisms by which people manipulate their moral compass and disregard the humanity of others in pursuit of personal or group advancement or survival. It is a feature, for example, of Colonialism in all its guises across modern human history and as it plays out in our world today.

What is Selective Moral Disengagement?

Bandura's influential Social Cognitive Theory⁶ proposes that moral disengagement is not a result of inherent immorality, but rather a cognitive process that allows us to distance ourselves from the ethical implications of our behaviour. He provides compelling evidence of how we morally disengage by convincing ourselves that our behaviour is reasonable or necessary. It is particularly prevalent in situations where we feel threatened, pressured, or face conflicting moral values. At its core, Selective Moral Disengagement involves the activation of cognitive processes that detach our moral standards (if indeed we have any to begin with) from our behaviour.

It is a way for us to distance ourselves from the potential or actual negative consequences of our actions while maintaining a positive self-image. Take, for example, the popular trope, “nothing personal, it’s just business”. It's a feature of the competitive marketplace and allows us to justify the profit motive over concern for others. If we are not otherwise psychopathic to begin with, we may behave in psychopathic ways by removing ourselves from the responsibility of our actions. Personality psychologist Robert Hogan⁷ suggests that aspects of dark trait personality and their associated outcomes can come to the fore where conditions force us to act as we might not otherwise.

Social Norms

One factor that influences selective moral disengagement is the presence of social norms that condone or even encourage unethical behaviour. For example, in a business setting, if an organisation's culture promotes a win-at-all-costs philosophy, employees may feel justified in engaging in dishonest practices to achieve their goals. It is the power of the group or crowd to influence everyone's behaviour. We rationalise by telling ourselves, if this is how it’s done, then this must be ok, even though I might be less inclined to do this if I were left to my own cognitive devices. Regardless of how honourable you might be, if placed in an environment of dishonesty for a long time, your ethical standards may be negatively impacted.

Diffusion of Responsibility

When we are part of a group or organisation, we may feel less personally responsible for our actions. Everybody and nobody is responsible. My behaviour seems coherent with that of the group. “I was just doing my job,” or “I was doing what I was told,” are familiar responses when we're held to account for unethical behaviour. This is an inherent problem with hierarchical systems in the workplace. When we insist that people work only from the neck down, we remove their capacity to think and to create. They become automatons and simply row in with whatever is the culture of the group. Individuality is foregone, and one mind amongst the collective is operational.

This diffusion of responsibility can lead to a weakening of our moral compass, as we believe our actions are justifiable because we are acting in coherence with the larger entity. This mindset can be particularly prevalent in corporate settings, where decisions are often made collectively, and individuals may feel less accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Subscribe to Sunday Letters

Mechanisms of Selective Moral Disengagement

Bandura identified nine psychological mechanisms that enable us and the groups to which we belong to selectively disengage our moral standards, if, indeed, we had them to begin with.

1. Moral Justification

A factor that contributes to selective moral disengagement is moral justification. Here we reinterpret our actions in a way that aligns with our moral standards. We may convince ourselves, for example, that our behaviour is necessary to achieve a greater good or that it is justified because others with higher authority have engaged in similar behaviour. Religion, for example, despite its evident moral foundations, often provides us with the cover we need to behave immorally. By rationalising our behaviour this way, we can alleviate the cognitive dissonance that arises from acting against our moral principles. And of course, this begs the question: What is the greater good, and who gets to decide?

According to Bandura, much abhorrent behaviour has been perpetrated by ordinary, decent people in the name of righteous ideologies. Religious principles and nationalistic imperatives, for example. Adversaries sanctify military actions and justify the deaths of civilians, but condemn those of their enemies as barbarity. Each side feels morally superior to the other and uses every means at its disposal to capture the popular narrative, to win the propaganda war.

2. Euphemistic Language

Euphemistic labelling refers to the use of language or labels that downplay the negative nature of an action. By employing less harsh or neutral terms, individuals can mitigate the moral implications of their behaviour. Bandura says that language shapes thought patterns on which actions are based, and activities take on different appearances depending on what they are called. Euphemistic language is used widely by governments and their PR machines to make harmful conduct respectable and to reduce personal responsibility. As such, euphemising is an injurious weapon. People behave much more cruelly when assaultive actions are sanitised than when they are called aggression.

Consider the case of a company that engages in unethical business practices, such as exploiting workers in sweatshops. Instead of acknowledging the harsh reality of their actions, they may use euphemistic labels such as “cost-effective labour solutions” or “global sourcing strategies” to sanitise their actions. By using these terms, they attempt to soften the negative perception of their behaviour in the eyes of the public and avoid moral responsibility. It is all about creating a false image, one that hides their true face.

3. Advantageous Comparison

People justify their harmful actions by comparing them to worse behaviours. By framing their conduct as less severe, they make it seem acceptable or even noble. For example, terrorists portray their attacks as minor compared to the historical atrocities committed against their communities. Military forces often describe destructive campaigns as necessary interventions to prevent greater evils, such as communist rule or “terrorist” oppression. As we have come to know, democratic states often employ euphemisms and propaganda to promote their agenda. Supporters of political violence argue that even democracies like France and the United States relied on violence to gain freedom.

People also use utilitarian arguments to justify their actions. For example, the atomic bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The argument was that it prevented a larger loss of life if the war had continued. They claim that their behaviour prevents more suffering than it causes. This reasoning rests on rejecting non-violent alternatives as ineffective and predicting favourable long-term outcomes. However, people often misjudge these outcomes due to biases and uncertainty. By comparing their actions to extreme inhumanities or portraying them as the lesser of two evils, they avoid moral self-sanction and preserve their self-image as moral actors.

4. Displacement of Responsibility

This mechanism involves shifting responsibility onto others or external factors, absolving oneself from personal accountability for unethical conduct. Bandura suggests that moral control operates most strongly when people acknowledge that they are contributors to harmful outcomes. Displacement of responsibility operates by obscuring or minimising the agentive role in the harm we might cause. People will behave in ways they normally repudiate if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the effects of their conduct.

Imagine a scenario where an employee is caught embezzling funds from their company. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they may blame their superiors for creating a toxic work environment that pushed them towards unethical behaviour. By displacing the responsibility onto others, they attempt to avoid facing the consequences of their actions. In many ways, however, closer investigation may show that leadership created a culture of theft and the individual was unduly influenced by this culture.

5. Diffusion of Responsibility

Similar to displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility occurs when individuals believe their unethical actions are a result of collective decision-making or a group mentality, displacing personal responsibility. We weaken personal moral control, Bandura says, when factors or conditions obscure personal agency and diffuse responsibility for detrimental behaviour. Leadership can apply the diffusion of responsibility in the workplace by dividing labour, for example. Subdivided tasks seem harmless in themselves, but the collective impact is dramatic. Division of labour encourages people to shift their attention from the meaning of what they are doing to the details of their specific job.

For example, in a corrupt organisation, employees may engage in fraudulent practices, such as bribery, believing that everyone else is doing it too. This diffusion of responsibility allows individuals to justify their actions by attributing them to the collective decision-making within the organisation, rather than taking personal accountability.

6. Distortion of Consequences

People perpetrate inhumane acts more quickly when they minimise, ignore, or distort the consequences of their actions. They avoid confronting the harm they cause, and if minimisation fails, they discredit the evidence. As long as they deny the reality of their actions, they feel little moral guilt. When suffering remains unseen and remote—such as in electronic warfare—people find it easier to inflict harm. Technologies like drones and laser-guided weapons allow operators to kill without facing the victims or experiencing their pain.

When people directly witness the suffering they cause, they usually experience distress and moral restraint. Studies show that people resist harmful commands more strongly when seeing the victim’s pain (Milgram, 1974). Professional charity fundraisers, for example, know that people must see “the blood on the table,” so to speak, before they'll donate. Even those who accept responsibility often continue harmful actions if they remain distant from the effects (Tilker, 1970). A photograph of a napalm-burned child in Vietnam triggered public outrage because it exposed the human cost of war. To suppress such reactions, military institutions now restrict media access to battlefield images. Organisational hierarchies further dilute responsibility; superiors give orders, intermediaries pass them on, and functionaries carry them out. Those in the middle often neither decide nor witness the outcome, making it easier for them to disengage morally.

7. Dehumanisation

People disengage morally when they strip others of their human qualities. Instead of seeing all human beings as valid with feelings and dignity, they label them as animals, savages, or demons. Sound familiar? This process dulls empathy and makes it easier for them to commit cruelty. For example, soldiers and torturers often refer to their victims using derogatory terms like “worms”, “gooks” or “animals” to suppress self-censure. When perpetrators view others as subhuman or evil, they feel justified in harming them. They no longer see the victims' suffering as relevant or deserving of compassion.

Dehumanisation also escalates when people combine it with diffused responsibility. In studies, participants treated dehumanised individuals more harshly, especially when they acted in groups and avoided personal accountability. In contrast, when people humanise others and take direct responsibility for their actions, they often refuse to inflict harm. During the Holocaust, Nazi officers degraded victims deliberately before execution to make the killings more tolerable. Israeli politicians openly refer to Palestinian men, women, and children as less than animals and so create the narrative that allows for the public's acceptance of their brutality. Bandura shows that social conditions, like bureaucracy and group divisions, encourage this process, turning everyday people into agents of cruelty.

8. Attribution of Blame

It's your own fault I beat you up. If you didn't act the way you do, then you wouldn't make me do this. This is how perpetrators of domestic violence attribute blame to the victim. People avoid moral responsibility by blaming victims or external circumstances for their harmful actions. They claim that others provoked them, leaving no choice but to retaliate. By framing themselves as innocent and their behaviour as defensive, they maintain a moral self-image. They also shift blame onto situational pressures, saying that events forced their hand. This self-exoneration makes them feel justified, even righteous, while committing harmful acts.

Attributing blame often leads others to join in the condemnation of the victim. Observers may come to see the victim as responsible for their own suffering, which deepens the harm. Victims may internalise this blame and develop feelings of self-contempt. In these cases, perpetrators not only escape guilt but also feel morally superior. This mechanism sustains cruelty and makes it more socially acceptable by distorting the perception of responsibility. And so, the abuse carries on.

Subscribe to Sunday Letters

Factors that Influence Selective Moral Disengagement

Research has shown that various factors can contribute to selective moral disengagement. It is essential to understand these factors to develop strategies for mitigating unethical behaviour. Some key factors that influence selective moral disengagement include:

Social Norms: Prevailing social norms and culture in organisations and broader society play a significant role in shaping our moral standards and our ability to disengage morally.

Group Dynamics: When we are part of a group, group dynamics can influence our willingness to disengage morally. It occurs through peer pressure, the need to conform, or a diffusion of responsibility within the group. The unwritten rules of the group become paramount; nobody stands up and says stop.

Personal Justification: We may have personal reasons or justifications that lead us to disengage morally. These reasons could be driven by an aspect of personality such as psychopathy or narcissism and an absence of empathy, self-interest, a desire for financial gain, self-righteousness or entitlement.

Emotional Factors: Emotional states, such as anger, frustration, or fear, can also contribute to the propensity for moral disengagement. These emotions can cloud judgment and make us more susceptible to justifying unethical actions.

Lack of Consequences: When we perceive a lack of consequences or punishment for our actions, we may be more inclined to disengage morally, believing we can act with impunity. Research shows that when nobody is watching, we are more likely to act out of our own self-interest.

Criticisms of Selective Moral Disengagement

Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement offers a compelling framework, but critics have identified several limitations. Some argue that the theory focuses too heavily on cognitive mechanisms and fails to account for the roles of emotion, intuition, and moral identity in shaping behaviour. Researchers like Jonathan Haidt (2001)⁸ suggests that people often make moral judgments based on intuition rather than deliberate reasoning. In other words, moral judgements are automatic in many situations. Others highlight the lack of cross-cultural validation, noting that most studies rely on Western samples and overlook how cultural norms influence moral disengagement.

Researchers have struggled to distinguish clearly between mechanisms such as moral justification and advantageous comparison (Detert et al., 2008)⁹. Furthermore, Bandura pays little attention to how systemic structures, like institutional power or ideology, enable widespread moral disengagement. Philip Zimbardo (2007)¹⁰ argued that such structures shape moral behaviour more profoundly than individual cognition alone. Finally, critics like Celia Moore (2008)¹¹ point out that Bandura assumes individuals possess a moral standard from which to disengage, ignoring the possibility that some of us may act with moral indifference rather than distortion.

Concluding Remarks

Bandura closes his essay on moral disengagement, suggesting that, given the many psychological devices for disengaging moral control, society cannot rely entirely on the will of individuals. However righteous our individual moral standards, we do not seem to be capable of providing safeguards against human cruelty. Civilised life, he says, in addition to humane personal codes, requires social systems that uphold compassionate behaviour and renounce cruelty.

Bandura says that dictatorial political systems disguised as democracy, those that exercise tight control over communication systems, can more easily promote moral disengagement than pluralistic egalitarian ones. Political diversity and tolerance of dissent allow challenges to suspect moral appeals. If we examine the reemergence of fascism and right-wing ideologies in some modern societies, there is perhaps little short-term hope. Healthy scepticism toward moral pretensions puts a further check on the misuse of morality for inhumane purposes. Bandura says that to function humanely, societies must establish effective social safeguards against the misuse of institutional power for exploitive and destructive purposes (ahem, United States). It should be made difficult for people to remove humanity from their conduct.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe to Sunday Letters to receive new articles and essays when they are published.

Subscribe to Sunday Letters

There are a number of reasons why I’m making this move, and although I know that some of you may be inconvenienced and I may lose you, I feel it’s necessary to take better control of the content I produce. I also have concerns about the people who fund Substack. Marc Andreessen is one of the VC people involved, and I absolutely do not align with his philosophy. You can read about it here.

In an age where solo creative people are manipulated and controlled by international corporations (take Spotify, for example), it is an imperative that we take back control of our work. Of course, I’m a very small fry, but it matters. I’ll take what I can from Substack and Medium, i.e., their reach, but aside from that, they get my seconds. In other words, those who subscribe to my newsletter will get original content first, and Substack, Medium, LinkedIn, etc., will get it second.

Why is this a good idea?

1. Privacy—your email address and privacy are more secure. I send with Proton SMTP, which is considered one of the most privacy-focused services on the web (the people at CERN made it). Mails are sent directly from my website, hosted with WP Engine (WordPress).

2. Independence—Substack talk about supporting independent writers, but that’s merely marketing. They are interested in scale, first and foremost. It’s why they are actively recruiting journalists and personalities with established audiences. That’s ok, but you’re either for community or corporate. You can’t be both.

3. No unsolicited emails—unlike Substack, I won’t prompt you every other day with annoying emails to subscribe to various other writers or blogs. Sunday Letters, that's it.

4. No jumping through hoops: When you subscribe, you receive an email to confirm your subscription and then a welcome email. You won’t be prompted to select a paid subscription. I do have Sunday Letters merch, though, if you want to support the newsletter.

I believe there is a short window where independent writers can take advantage of these platforms and do well, but it seems to me that opportunity with Substack has passed.

From this Sunday, 11th May 25, you’ll get Sunday Letters direct from my own site. I’ll move everyone there over the next few days. The welcome email looks like this 👇

The Substack publication and archive will remain, so people can still access them. All new posts will be here. I may duplicate them on Substack, but rest assured, you won’t receive the same material twice—that would be irritating.

Looking forward to reconnecting with you this Sunday

Slán for now 👋

Sunday Letters is going home

Almost 2.5k of you receive this newsletter, and so I’d like to get your input on something that impacts how you read what I write…

I’ve wrestled for a long time with the problem of Big Tech infiltrating our lives. It seems that I cannot unwind myself from it. Take this newsletter platform, Substack, for instance. It talks about being a place for writers, but it’s really not much different from all the other community-oriented corporate platforms backed by VC firms. Substack executives do what their board tells them to do. Ok, they have some leeway, but when we really get down to it, they do what they need to be commercially successful, to give their investors bang for their buck. Maybe that’s ok, but don’t sell me one thing and give me something else. Your business philosophy and core motivation matter.

He who pays the piper calls the tune, and I find that executive decisions are rarely for the primary benefit of their users or buyers but rather for their VC investors. So, all their shouting about the platform's honour and integrity is vacuous and disingenuous to me—marketing, in other words. In addition, many of these tech bros and their funders, either directly or indirectly, provide information and technology to governments and private corporations that support and enable genocide and destruction of our planet. Am I taking a leap in making this connection? Do the research, it’s not hard to find. Read The Age of Surveillance by Shoshana Zuboff, for example, or anything by .

The tech is good, innovative, lots of great features, and it’s easy to use—the best I’ve found. However, I’m increasingly at odds with the capitalist model and all that feeds it. Look at how this platform grows, for example. Substack is using its increasing reach to attract big names with existing large audiences. What deals are being done here? I don’t know, and maybe I shouldn’t be bothered by it, but you can bet they’re being lured by incentives and promises of broadening their audiences and revenue. At the same time, everyone else flounders on the fringes, fed daily diets of “how to be successful on Substack” type posts. I thought I escaped that crap when I took my attention from Medium. Others suggest that the Newsletter model is worn out. Fine, but I didn’t start writing online in 2013 to make money per se, and if I did, it has proven to be an unmitigated failure.

Every action counts, and if everyone began to unwind from the self-imposed bind we’ve placed on ourselves and how inextricably linked we have become to the problems in our world, then maybe we would see positive change.

So I’ve been rethinking my entire approach to writing, and I need your help making a decision…

Nice one, I appreciate your input.

Regards, Larry

https://open.substack.com/pub/anassemblage

I’ve no plans to post on Sunday Letters any time soon, so if you like reading what I have to say about daily work, careers, business, and now also technology, then consider subscribing to Peak Performer here on Substack. It’s where I’ll be doing all my writing for the foreseeable future.

Subscribe on Peak Performer

I hope to see you there, and thanks, as always, for your support

Slán, Larry

Yesterday, I let you know about the "Generative AI For Workplace Productivity & Creativity" workshop. It's a three hour workshop taking place over two 90 min Zoom sessions, Tuesday 26th Nov and Tuesday 3rd Dec.

Well, registration is now open.

I've been delivering this material on the use of generative AI to businesses and education & training groups for the past year and I've now distilled the contents down into a 3 hour beginners workshop.

Watch This Introduction 👇

🚨 If you want to get up to speed on Generative AI...

🚨 If you want to get more productive and creative...

🚨 If you want to know the strengths and limitations of Gen AI...

🚨 And if you want to get hands-on with tools like ChatGPT and Copilot, then this Generative AI workshop is for you

We'll look at the pros, cons, promises and dangers of AI. We'll test ChatGPT for understanding, learn how to structure prompts, do image creation and image look-up. We'll create audio and video, examine spreadsheets and get insights from PDF documents...

❌ You don't need to know code...

❌ You don't need to become a data scientist...

❌ You need no prior experience...

❌ Not do you need to work in IT.

✅ You just need yourself...

✅ Your computer...

✅ A ChatGPT+ account

✅ and lots of enthusiasm to learn.

We're starting from the ground up, and developing fundamental digital skills.

Go to the registration page for more info and to register.

I hope to see you there.

Regards, Larry

Find out more

Over the past year, my colleague, Bernie Goldbach, and I have been delivering the Artificial Intelligence for Personal Productivityprogramme to small groups of business people here in Dublin Ireland (we're on our fifth cohort of 35 currently). This was one of the first courses on AI tools for work that we know of. I've also been training staff at Dublin City University on AI for creativity and productivity, and now I'm bringing that material to you.

Launching This Monday 18th Nov 09:00 GMT

On Monday morning, I'm opening up 35 places on the workshop "Generative AI For Workplace Productivity & Creativity". This is a three hour workshop over two 90 min sessions taking place on Zoom on Tuesday 26th Nov and Tuesday 3rd Dec.

Here's a screenshot 👇

🚨 If you want to get up to speed on Generative AI...

🚨 If you want to get more productive and creative...

🚨 If you want to know the strengths and limitations of Gen AI...

🚨 And if you want to get hands-on, to sink your teeth into using tools like ChatGPT and Copilot, then this workshop is for you.

We'll look at the pros, cons, promises and dangers of AI. We'll test ChatGPT for understanding, learn how to structure prompts, do image creation and image look-up. We'll create audio and video, examine spreadsheets and get insights from PDF documents...

❌ You don't need to know code...

❌ You don't need to become a data scientist...

❌ You need no prior experience...

❌ Not do you need to work in IT.

✅ You just need yourself...

✅ Your computer...

✅ A ChatGPT+ account

✅ and lots of enthusiasm to learn.

We're starting from the ground up, and developing fundamental digital skills.

I'm putting the final touches to this registration page today. I'll email you the registration link Sunday night (before anyone else)...It looks like there's a lot of interest in this workshop, so keep an eye on your inbox so that you don't miss out.

See you Sunday...

Regards, Larry

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In this latest episode of Sunday Letters, we're in conversation with PhD, writer at bondeconomics.com and former quantitative analyst at various economic consultancies in Canada. He's the author of several self-published books on economics, including Modern Monetary Theory & The Recovery, published in 2021. The guy on the cover image of this episode, by the way, is Hyman Minsky, the guy most leftist economists cite as the father of MMT. He said, "Stability leads to instability. The more stable things become, and the longer things are stable, the more unstable they will be when the crisis hits.” Brian touches on this idea in the conversation.

The discussion begins with a foundational question: "What is money?" Brian explains that money is a complex concept that serves primarily as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. In a monetised society, money simplifies transactions by eliminating the need for direct barter or reciprocal obligations. While money is commonly thought of in terms of physical cash or digital equivalents like bank deposits, Brian highlights that it also includes instruments that are not technically part of the money supply but function similarly, such as credit card transactions and business receivables.

He goes on to emphasise that while individuals use money for everyday transactions, businesses and financial institutions engage in more complex exchanges involving various forms of credit and debt. This perspective shifts the understanding of money from a simplistic medium of exchange to a more intricate system of debt settlement and liquidity management.

The Role of Banks and Reserves

The conversation delves into the workings of banks and the concept of fractional reserve banking. Dmitri raises a common scenario where a bank holds only a fraction of its deposits in reserve while lending out the rest. Romanchuk clarifies that while this textbook model suggests a fixed reserve requirement, the reality is more flexible. Banks manage liquidity and credit risk, ensuring they can meet reserve requirements while still providing loans and other services.

Brian points out that in practice, banks often operate with minimal reserves, relying on liquidity management to balance their books. He explains that banks borrow from each other and from the central bank to maintain the necessary reserves, highlighting the critical role of central banks in providing stability to the banking system. This liquidity management is essential to prevent bank insolvency and maintain confidence in the financial system.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

The discussion then shifts to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which offers a different perspective on government spending and money creation. Brain explains that MMT posits that governments that issue their own currencies can never run out of money in the same way households or businesses can. Such governments can create money to finance deficits, focusing on managing inflation rather than balancing budgets.

He underscores that MMT challenges traditional views on fiscal policy, arguing that concerns about government debt are often misplaced. Instead, the focus should be on the productive capacity of the economy and the role of government spending in achieving full employment and economic stability. Brian also highlights that in times of economic downturn, government deficits can provide the necessary stimulus to support recovery and maintain demand.

Implications and Criticisms

The episode then explores potential criticisms of MMT, such as the risk of inflation and the political feasibility of its implementation. Brian acknowledges these concerns but argues that proper management of fiscal policy and economic resources can mitigate inflationary pressures. He also notes that the political challenge lies in shifting public and policymaker perceptions about the nature of money and government finance.

In conclusion, the episode provides a thorough examination of money's multifaceted role in the economy and introduces listeners to the principles of Modern Monetary Theory. Brian Romanchuk's insights offer a challenge to conventional economic thinking and a fresh perspective on how governments can leverage their monetary sovereignty to achieve economic goals. The discussion encourages a re-evaluation of traditional fiscal policies and highlights the importance of understanding the complexities of money and finance in modern economies.

So, How Does it Impact You And Me In Our Daily Lives?

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that governments can and should spend more freely to ensure full employment. For the average worker, this means that in times of economic downturn, the government can inject money into the economy to create jobs and stimulate demand, reducing the likelihood of unemployment.

Increased government spending can fund public projects and services, creating more job opportunities in various sectors, including infrastructure, education, and healthcare. For employees, particularly those in finance, construction, and industries reliant on credit, understanding that banks are managing risks and ensuring liquidity can translate to more stable job conditions.

One of the criticisms of MMT is the potential for inflation, which is when prices rise, decreasing purchasing power. For the average person, this could mean higher prices for groceries, housing, and other essentials. However, MMT proponents argue that careful management can control inflation, preventing runaway price increases. By ensuring that government spending is directed towards productive uses—like infrastructure or technology—MMT aims to stimulate the economy without causing significant inflation.

Increased government spending under MMT can improve public services, which means better healthcare, education, and social services for individuals. Proponents suggest this can reduce out-of-pocket expenses for these services, indirectly lowering the cost of living. During economic downturns, for example, government spending can support welfare programs, unemployment benefits, and other social safety nets, providing a financial cushion for those impacted by job losses or reduced income. In this sense, MMT is a socially oriented approach to the economy and an answer to the liberal free market ideas of the 1980s that, arguably, have brought about some of the greatest economic catastrophes in recent times.

Unlike personal debt, government debt in countries that issue their own currencies is managed differently, so thinking about government debt as we would household or corporate debt is inaccurate. Governments that issue their own currency can take their time; they don’t owe anyone but themselves. They are the issuer of the currency, after all. The fear of government debt should not overshadow the benefits of strategic spending. For individuals, this means understanding that government investment in the economy can lead to better long-term economic conditions, benefiting everyone.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

Get in touch with Brian Romanchuck

Bond Economics Newsletter
on Substack
Brian’s Books
Brian Romanchuck on X

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In this episode of The Sunday Letters Podcast, I’m in conversation with former US Air Force pilot and current lecturer in digital media studies at TU Shannon, Bernie Goldbach. We talk about the contrast in Bernie’s work from the high intensity of flying missions in the Pacific region and the Middle East to the perhaps less demanding work of lecturing third-level students in Clonmel. Here’s a summary of some of the main points in the conversation.

• Hauling radioactive waste on Enewetak in the Pacific

• Identity and intrinsic motivation of Air Force pilots

• The challenge of work-life balance in high-intensity roles

• The Secret Service, working at The Pentagon and one of the greatest spoofs the US played on Russia.

• Bernie’s take on Ukraine, the intrinsic motivation of Ukrainian soldiers

• Why did the 1988 Ramstein Air Show disaster happen? What Bernie witnessed that day and, crucially, the night before.

• Leaving the Air Force and moving to Ireland and translating his skills into teaching.

• The heightened attention, perception, memory and motor skills of high-performers

• Creative design and digital media in education

• The negative impact of technology on young people’s development. Passive entertainment Vs practical interaction.

• Finding fulfilment and engagement in work and the power of symbols of success.

• The work in the post-Social Media world and the power of stories.

• What would you do if money was no object?

• The future of work and the impact of technology on work and jobs.

Links

clonmeldigital.micro.blog

insideview.ie

Bernie Goldbach LinkedIn

Technological University of The Shannon

How to support The Sunday Letters Journal

Subscribe for Free

Become a paid subscriber

Upgrade from Free

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In our latest episode of The Sunday Letters Journal podcast, and I delved into the complex topic of the morality of money. This discussion is not just about the practicalities of economics but rather about the more profound moral questions that underpin our financial systems, our relationship with one another, and our sense of humanity and everyday existence.

The discussion begins by reflecting on the importance of money in our society. It’s impossible to talk about work without mentioning money because we’ve collectively decided that money is essential to our way of life. We dedicate a significant portion of our lives to work, often at the expense of truly living. The question arises then: why do we work? What is the purpose of work? Can we survive without effectively working as waged slaves for the best part of our lives? This leads us to the fundamental question of what it means to be moral in the context of making and spending money.

We both have been reading David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5,000 Years”1, which provides a substantial historical backdrop to our conversation. One of the core ideas we discussed is the concept of morality itself. Dmitri explained that morality involves a set of rules or principles that govern behaviour, and these principles can be understood through different philosophical lenses, such as deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology, as championed by Immanuel Kant, posits that there are universal moral laws that apply to everyone, regardless of the consequences. In contrast, utilitarianism, or consequentialism, suggests that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, specifically whether it maximises happiness or utility for the greatest number of people.

As we delved deeper, we touched on the historical perspectives of morality and money, drawing on the ideas of ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Plato condemned the pursuit of money, believing it corrupted the soul by allowing desires to override reason. While also critical of the excessive pursuit of wealth, Aristotle introduced the concepts of use value and exchange value. He argued that goods should be produced primarily for their use value – to meet genuine needs – rather than for exchange value – merely to generate profit. This distinction remains relevant today as we grapple with the implications of producing goods and services primarily for profit and the satisfaction of base-level desires.

Our conversation then shifted to the role of religion in shaping moral views on money. In medieval Europe, the early church maintained a stance against commerce, just as perhaps Aristotle did, viewing profit as inherently deceitful and corrupting. However, as time progressed, the church’s position softened, recognising the necessity of trade for societal functioning. This transition highlights the evolving nature of moral perspectives on money, influenced by changing economic realities. Or it was perhaps due to the church’s increasing ties to wealth and political systems.

We explored how these historical ideas have influenced modern economic thought, particularly through the works of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Drawing on Aristotle’s distinction between use value and exchange value, Marx critiqued the capitalist system for prioritising profit over human needs. He argued that this focus leads to the exploitation of workers and the commodification of labour, reducing people to mere instruments for generating wealth. This critique remains poignant as we witness the growing inequality and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

The discussion also touched on contemporary issues, such as exploiting workers in developing countries to produce goods for affluent markets. We questioned the morality of benefiting from the labour of others in developing countries who are often subjected to inhumane conditions in the production of consumer goods. This raises the uncomfortable reality that our consumer choices can perpetuate systems of exploitation and inequality in the Global South. It forces us to consider whether it is moral to enjoy the fruits of others’ labour when it comes at such a high human and environmental cost.

Historically, religion and royalty wielded significant influence over people’s lives, often using their positions to accumulate personal wealth and control over populations. This dynamic persists today, with corporations and political leaders frequently intertwined, leading to policies that prioritise economic gain over the self-determination of nations and social welfare. The entanglement of money and power raises ethical concerns about the fairness and justice of our economic systems.

Throughout the conversation, we acknowledged that these issues are complex and deeply ingrained in our societal structures. However, we also emphasised the importance of questioning and challenging the status quo. By examining the moral implications of our financial and economic systems, we can begin to envision and work towards more equitable and humane alternatives.

The morality of money is a vast and intricate topic that touches on philosophy, history, religion, and contemporary issues. By understanding the historical and philosophical contexts, perhaps we can better navigate the moral dilemmas that money presents and strive towards a more just and compassionate society.

Famine, Affluence, And Morality Author Peter Singer 1972

1.66MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Dmitri Notes On Morality

103KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Time, Money, And Morality Gino, F

300KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

Welcome to Sunday Letters. I’m Larry Maguire, your host, and with me today is my friend and philosopher, Dimitri Belkov. In this episode, we’ll be discussing the role of money in our lives. We’ll look at where money comes from, different theories about its value, and how debt affects individuals and society. We’ll also touch on the history of money and some of the moral questions around financial obligations.

We don’t get to discuss John Maynard Keynes in this episode, but we should have, and maybe we’ll dedicate a future episode to the man who prophesied the three-day week in 1936. I think he was right insofar as that’s where technology was going. Still, work seems to hold a certain moral imperative, so much so that our sense of personal worth is so deeply entwined with working prescribed hours for the best part of our lives that we can’t see the obvious sense in what Keynes predicted.

So here we are.

The Origins of Money

One predominant theory that has circulated for centuries is the metalist theory of money. This theory posits that money originated as a medium of exchange with intrinsic value, often in precious metals like gold and silver. In his seminal work “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith suggested that before the advent of money, people engaged in barter trade, exchanging commodities directly. However, according to David Graeber, the barter myth does not hold up under scrutiny. He suggests that no documented society has relied primarily on barter as a method of exchange. Instead, anthropologists have found that gift economies and credit systems were more common in pre-monetary societies.

Contrary to classic economic theory, Graeber argued that the creation of money was more closely related to the needs of the state than to the inefficiencies of barter. States and rulers created standardised currency units to facilitate taxation and control of their economies.1

Early forms of money included metal coins minted by kings to reflect their wealth. These coins, however, did not always have a value directly correlated with their metal content. Anthropological evidence shows that people often debased coinage; their actual metal content was less than their face value, leading to practices such as coin shaving. One of the most notorious episodes of monetary manipulation in English history was that of Henry VIII in the 1540s.2

The Role of the State and Fiat Money

Contrary to the metalist view, another theory suggests that money’s value comes from its acceptance by the state as a means of payment for taxes and debts. This perspective is captured in the concept of fiat money, which holds value not because of its intrinsic worth but because of the government’s decree. This theory posits that the state played a crucial role in creating markets and stimulating production by issuing money.

The transition to fiat money marked a significant shift. Money became a promise by the government to accept it for tax payments, thus ensuring its widespread acceptance. This system allowed states to control the money supply and influence economic activity without relying on physical commodities like gold.

Debt and Economic Stability

The creation and management of money are closely tied to the concept of debt. Historically, debt has been both a tool for economic growth and a source of personal and systemic risk. The issuance of credit by central banks and financial institutions enables economic expansion but also creates a cycle of indebtedness that can lead to financial crises.

One illustrative case is the issuing of loans based on the promise of future repayment, effectively creating money “out of thin air.” We borrow from our future selves, expecting the resources to be available to repay what was borrowed. It’s speculation—a bet—one that the bank rarely loses. This system can lead to significant social and economic stress, as seen during the 2008 financial crisis. Individuals who cannot repay their debts often face severe consequences, including foreclosure and bankruptcy. At the same time, large financial institutions receive government bailouts to maintain economic stability—quite a contrast in policy. The already rich and powerful are protected using the people’s money, but the people are left to suffer and die under the weight of their moral obligation to pay back what they “owe”.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has gained traction as a framework for understanding the role of government in managing the economy. , and are Substack writers who write regularly on the topic. MMT argues that countries issuing their own currencies can never “run out of money” in the same way businesses or households can. Governments can always create more money to fund public spending if they carefully manage inflation and currency value. Proponents suggest that this approach can lead to more effective economic policies, particularly addressing unemployment and underinvestment in public goods.

However, MMT is not without its critics. Opponents argue that excessive money printing can lead to hyperinflation and undermine economic stability. The debate continues as economists and policymakers explore this theory’s potential benefits and risks in practice. Dmitri and I hope to introduce you to an expert or two on MMT in a future episode so stay tuned for that.

Social and Moral Implications

The nature of money extends beyond economics into social and moral realms. Money influences social relationships and personal behaviour, acting as a measure of trust and reliability. For instance, the moral dimension of debt has always been a subject of historical and religious debate, with various cultures and religions condemning usury and advocating for debt forgiveness. What happens to the debt when it is forgiven? Jesus Christ, even the term “forgiven” implies a moral breach. And who owes who anyway? If money is created by my signature on the bottom of a contract with a “lender”, then surely the money is mine, and I owe nothing. We hope to have these questions and others answered as we navigate this subject of money in the next few episodes.

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters
Send us a Tip
Get some Sunday Letters merch
Subscribe on YouTube

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

Mark Twain referred to it as the Gilded Age. Given his wit and occasional cynicism, I’m not sure that was entirely in celebration of the growth and expansion of industrialisation in America at the time. It was a gilded age for some, such as the industrialists and capitalists, but not so much for the common worker. With the new “opportunities” that opened up for the people of the New World after the Louisianna Purchase of 1803, the next one hundred years would witness dramatic change and a conflict between the capitalists and the workers.

The Pullman Strike of 1894 is one of the most significant events in American labour history. It reflected the intense struggles between labour and management during this century of economic growth. This strike not only highlighted the harsh working conditions and economic disparities workers faced but also marked a pivotal moment in the development of labour unions and federal intervention in labour disputes.

George Pullman was a carpenter by trade from New York, who, in the 1850s, headed west to seek his fortune. He made his reputation raising houses and other buildings to the newly required street level. Later, he turned his hand to manufacturing luxury railroad sleeping cars that allowed wealthy passengers to travel in luxury from East to West. Pullman envisioned a utopian community for his workers, establishing the company town of Pullman, Illinois. This town included housing, shops, churches, and schools, all owned by the company. Pullman believed this controlled environment would foster loyalty and productivity among his workers.

However, Pullman’s paternalistic approach was viewed as overbearing and suppressed his workers’ freedom to direct their private lives. Workers were subjected to high rents and living costs, deducted directly from their wages. Despite the town’s apparent amenities, workers had little autonomy, and Pullman maintained strict control over their lives, including monitoring their behaviour and limiting their rights to free speech and assembly. Added to this was the pressure of competition on Pullman’s operations, which was passed on to workers in the form of layoffs and reductions in wages.

On May 11, 1894, facing pressing economic hardships and Pullman’s refusal to lower rents or discuss grievances, Pullman workers initiated a strike. The American Railway Union (ARU) led the strike, headed by Eugene V. Debs. The ARU, one of the largest and most influential labour unions of the time, sought to unite all railroad workers, regardless of their specific trade or skill level. The Pullman workers’ strike quickly gained support from other ARU members, leading to a nationwide boycott of Pullman cars. The boycott disrupted rail traffic across the country, severely impacting commerce and drawing national attention to the workers’ plight.

As the strike expanded, the railroads formed the General Managers Association (GMA) to counter the ARU’s efforts. The GMA, representing 24 railroad companies, sought assistance from the federal government, arguing that the strike disrupted mail delivery and interstate commerce, justifying federal intervention. President Grover Cleveland, under pressure from business interests and concerned about maintaining public order, responded by deploying federal troops to Chicago on July 3, 1894. Cleveland’s actions escalated tensions, leading to violent clashes between strikers and soldiers. Federal Marshals and state militia were found responsible for the deaths of thirteen people and seriously wounded fifty-three others. The intervention was deemed justifiable under the pretext of ensuring the movement of mail and protecting railroad property, but it effectively broke the strike.

The Pullman Strike of 1894 remains a crucial chapter in the history of American labour. It underscored the harsh realities of industrial capitalism and the lengths to which both employers and the government would go to maintain the status quo. However, it also galvanised the labour movement, inspiring future generations of workers to continue the fight for fair wages, reasonable working conditions, and the right to unionise. The strike’s legacy is evident in the eventual successes of the labour movement, such as the establishment of Labor Day as a national holiday in 1894, just months after the strike ended. This recognition of workers’ contributions marked a small but significant step toward acknowledging the importance of labour in American society1.

Ah, yes, but has anything really changed? Arguably, matters became worse in the proceeding hundred or more years. Workers still work at the behest of their employers, and worker rights were slowly but surely chipped away at, particularly so in the US, to the point now where wages have effectively stayed the same since the 1980s. As an illustration, here are two charts representing wage growth in the US and UK since 1974. Meanwhile, corporate profits and executive pay soar.

The Pullman Strike

150KB ∙ PDF file

Download

PDF of The Pullman Strike by Richard Schneirov at Indiana State University

Download

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters
Send us a Tip
Get some Sunday Letters merch
Subscribe on YouTube

References

We’d love your input…

Working Less

By

Many people spend most of their time working. The idea that ‘everybody has to work’ is deeply entrenched in our mindset. Idleness is condemned, and people who do not work are looked upon with contempt. But while I agree that some work should be done, I think we do not have to work as much as we do now.

We had a conversation last week (here) in which we discussed types of jobs that are meaningless; they don’t produce anything of value to society; these jobs could never have existed, and nobody would even notice the difference. But even if people work in productive occupations, they seem to produce too much, far beyond our needs. Moreover, as Bertrand Russell (1932/2020) notes: “...we produce hosts of things that are not wanted” (p. 21). Well, we do not want this 'host of things’ until we are convinced, through an advertisement, for example, that we need them.

It is hard to see any changes possible as long as our economic system operates on the principle of accumulation of wealth. However, if there is a slight chance, we can propose another way of living. If we agree that most jobs are useless, and people get their money for doing little (if any) of value for society and that some jobs produce things we do not need, there could be, I think, at least two possible solutions. First, redistribution of work, and second, implementation of Universal (or unconditional) Basic Income (these two solutions are not mutually exclusive).

In his essay ‘In Praise of Idleness’ (1932/2020)1, Bertrand Russell argues that our technological advancements made it possible to reduce the amount of labour required to produce the necessities of life for everyone. He gives an example:

The idea is that if we withdraw many people from the ‘productive occupations’, we will still manage to provide ourselves with necessities in our daily lives. However, if we do not withdraw them, as Russell suggests, we could redistribute time spent on a job so that every single person does not have to work, let's say, eight hours a day, but instead four or less. We now have a lot of people who are ‘withdrawn’ from productive occupations – an unemployed population. Add to that people who are employed in ‘bullshit jobs’ and the time spent working can be reduced, perhaps, to one day a week.

Another question is, however, to what extent what we produce we actually need. Perhaps, if we eradicate unnecessary production, the working hours would also shrink. I realise that it may be difficult to say what exactly is ‘unnecessary’ and what people really need (our needs vary). After all, human beings are curious and strive for novelty. However, some of our needs may as well be manufactured. Advertisement is an excellent example of this. Another example is social status: we want to be deemed worthy, we want to be seen as ‘successful’, and this drives us to buy things that, I would argue, are pretty much unnecessary for one’s life (Note that the image of ‘successful individual’ is also advertised).

The other solution is UBI (universal basic income) – “an unconditional allowance, sufficient to live on, paid in cash to every citizen regardless of income” (Rowett, 2022, p.81)2. It is entirely different from any social welfare scheme in that “it is paid (1) irrespective of who one lives with, (2) irrespective of how much income one earns, and (3) irrespective of whether one is willing to work” (Van Parjis, 2013, p. 174)3. UBI was considered a utopia for quite some time but recently started to gain traction. As technology makes many forms of human labour obsolete and threatens mass unemployment, UBI seems to be an appealing solution.

Imagine that everybody gets the same amount of money regularly so that they can cover their basic needs. They will be free to decide whether to work or not. Those who now work in jobs they do not like could leave them without being afraid that they have nothing to live on. Anybody with an ambition to become an entrepreneur will be able to do so, as there will be no risk of ending up broke if their business does not succeed. Students will not have to look for a job to cover their tuition fees but instead focus on their education. Artists will have time to engage in creativity with no fear of not having enough money for a living.

Overall, UBI will help to improve mental health and promote happiness. It would allow those employed in meaningless jobs, suffering in many cases from depression, to leave it. The work itself will be optional. We will finally have more leisure time. It does not mean we will spend it at home binge-watching the Netflix series. As Bertrand Russell suggests:

I think Russell is correct. Having more leisure time, we will give our talents and creativity to the public good, and we do it without anybody telling us to do so. Our ‘good nature’ will manifest itself when there is no daily struggle.

To summarise, it seems that we live in a time when spending most of the week at work, or doing the ‘bullshit job’, is no longer necessary. Redistribution of ‘useful’ work that produces the necessaries of life between those unemployed and those employed in ‘bullshit jobs’ could drastically minimise the number of working hours and days. The other way is to implement UBI. Both solutions will give people more free time and financial stability to live their lives how they like and meaningfully contribute to our society.

This Week’s Podcast

Elsewhere

Sharing some Notes from , and others we follow on SubStack Notes.

We’re on YouTube

We post all our video episodes and other content on The Sunday Letters Journal's YouTube channel. Follow us there.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support Sunday Letters

There are no adverts or paid promotions on Sunday Letters, and we’d like to keep it that way, but we need your support to achieve that. We’ve chosen a couple of ways for you to do that.

🛒 Get some Sunday Letters merch

💁‍♂️ Offer a one-off tip

👨‍💻 Become a paid subscriber

📝 Buy a friend a subscription

Help Us Spread The Word

If you enjoy The Sunday Letters Journal, invite your friends and family to subscribe. If you refer friends, you will receive benefits that give you special access to The Sunday Letters Journal.

How to participate

1. Share The Sunday Letters Journal. You'll get credit for new subscribers when you use the referral link below or the “Share” button on any post. Send the link in a text or email, or share it on social media with friends.

Refer a friend

2. Earn benefits. When your friends use your referral link to subscribe (free or paid), you'll receive the following complimentary subscription period.

• Get 1-month complimentary subscription for 3 referrals given

• Get 3-month complimentary subscription for 5 referrals given

• Get 6-month complimentary subscription for 25 referrals given

To learn more, check out Substack’s FAQ.

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

With the progression of artificial intelligence, many voices are heralding the end of work as we know it. It is not just one trade or profession that will be impacted, they say. There will be many, from data analysts to legal professionals, those in the arts and media, truck, bus and rail drivers, food delivery, security, teaching—you name it. There is no domain of work that will not be affected. Over the next twenty to thirty years, vast swathes of people will have no job. So what are we going to do? How will we earn a living (as if we should have to work to earn the right to live and be comfortable in the first place)? Universal Basic Income (UBI) may be the solution. In this week’s episode, Dmitri and I discuss this idea and the results of recent trials of UBI in various countries around the world.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a financial policy model that involves regular, unconditional payments made by the government to every citizen, regardless of their income level or employment status. The core idea behind UBI is to provide all citizens with a living wage that can support basic needs, thereby reducing poverty and its associated negative health outcomes and increasing equality within society. This concept has gathered both acclaim and criticism over the years and is backed by various philosophical, economic, and practical arguments.

The idea of a universal basic income isn't new. One of the earliest proponents of a form of UBI was Thomas Paine, an 18th-century political activist, who proposed a capital grant for all individuals upon reaching adulthood in his work "Agrarian Justice" (1797)1. In the 20th century, economists like Milton Friedman introduced the concept of a "negative income tax”2. Although not strictly a UBI policy, it parallels the ideas of UBI in providing a financial safety net to the less affluent. These early ideas laid foundational thoughts that challenged traditional welfare systems, proposing instead a simpler and potentially more effective means of redistributing income to support economic and social welfare.

In recent years, several pilot programs and studies have been launched to test the feasibility and effects of UBI. One notable example is the 2017 to 2018 Universal Basic Income experiment in Finland3, where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 per month without any conditions from January 2017 to December 2018. The findings, published by Kela, the Finnish social security agency, suggested that while the UBI did not significantly improve employment outcomes, it did increase the beneficiaries' well-being, giving them a sense of better financial security and mental health.

Another significant case study from the United States was conducted in the city of Stockton, California4. It was conducted involving 125 residents who received $500 monthly and operated for two years. The preliminary results indicated improvements in employment and stability, debunking myths that financial aids discourage work. These contemporary experiments provide crucial data points and insights into how UBI could be structured and implemented effectively in different socio-economic contexts.

The future of UBI is a subject of vibrant debate among economists, policymakers, and the public. Proponents argue that UBI could be essential in addressing the challenges posed by automation and the precarious nature of modern work environments. It's seen as a tool for promoting consumer spending and economic stability. Critics, however, caution against its high costs and potential to dissuade individuals from seeking employment. Although, these arguments seem to be based on personal moral values rather than solid research findings. For example, a trial in Namibia from 2008 to 2009 found that UBI had a significant reduction in poverty and child malnutrition, an increase in school attendance and healthcare utilisation, and an increase in economic activity as recipients invested in small businesses and increased their purchasing power.

Universal Basic Income remains a compelling yet controversial idea in the discourse on economic reform and social welfare. As societies continue to evolve and face new economic challenges, the lessons learned from past and ongoing experiments will be crucial in shaping the future of UBI. Whether it will become a standard policy remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly represents a significant shift in thinking about welfare, work, and economic security in the modern world.

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters
Send us a Tip
Get some Sunday Letters merch
Subscribe on YouTube

References

First, a question for readers

The work I first undertook as a youngster was manual and practical. I made tea and did the shop run for dozens of electricians. I swept and cleaned the canteen, washed the lads’ cups, put the Burco on the boil—woe betide you if you forgot to put the Burco on in time—walked the site to find the lads and take their lunchtime order, and various other associated tasks. The decent ones allowed me to keep the change. The nasty ones would take great pleasure in giving me a hard time for not having change enough. It was a good experience regardless, and although not many would enjoy a lower-order role such as that, I wouldn’t regard it as a Bullshit Job. Low paying and harsh at times, yes, but not bullshit in Graeber’s sense of the word.

When I reflect on my past work, I believe most of it had a practical value—I was making and fixing things that people needed and used in their everyday lives. The work I do today is not at all manual but is no less valuable (I hope). If someone walks out of a session with me and is a little better for it, then that’s a job well done. Although, if you were to ask me what work I do, what goes on in a session, I’m not sure I could say completely. Some people call it therapy, others call it coaching, or some other name, but all these names don’t seem to capture it. (I won’t get into that topic now; there’s an essay alone in that.) Regardless, I believe there is an opportunity for both parties to gain from the experience in this work. Therefore, my work has great meaning and purpose for me and the potential for that in the other too.

This week, Dmitri and I were discussing Bullshit Jobs and David Graeber’s work on the topic. He essentially held the view that the vast majority of jobs people do add no value to the world and, in many cases, have a negative effect on people and this planet. We almost don’t know why these jobs exist at all. Maybe it’s designed this way to keep people busy, so they don’t have to think. Check out this week’s discussion and Dmitri’s thoughts below.

Dmitri Belikov on Working A Bullshit Job

This Week’s Podcast

Elsewhere

1st May was International Labour Day, although, the date varied depending where you are. For my US friends, it was the 5th of May. Here are some links and other relevant content.

The World Socialist Website featured the International May Day 2024 Online Rally. You can watch the playback here.

Last week, Karl Marx turned the ripe old age of 206. He lives on in the minds of people who seek to make the world better for everyone, not just the few.

We’re on YouTube

Subscribe on YouTube

Support Sunday Letters

There are no adverts or paid promotions on Sunday Letters, and we’d like to keep it that way, but we need your support to achieve that. We’ve chosen a couple of ways for you to do that.

🛒 Get some Sunday Letters merch

💁‍♂️ Offer a one-off tip

👨‍💻 Become a paid subscriber

📝 Buy a friend a subscription

Help Us Spread The Word

If you enjoy The Sunday Letters Journal, invite your friends and family to subscribe. If you refer friends, you will receive benefits that give you special access to The Sunday Letters Journal.

How to participate

1. Share The Sunday Letters Journal. You'll get credit for new subscribers when you use the referral link below or the “Share” button on any post. Send the link in a text or email, or share it on social media with friends.

Refer a friend

2. Earn benefits. When your friends use your referral link to subscribe (free or paid), you'll receive the following complimentary subscription period.

• Get 1-month complimentary subscription for 3 referrals given

• Get 3-month complimentary subscription for 5 referrals given

• Get 6-month complimentary subscription for 25 referrals given

To learn more, check out Substack’s FAQ.

In his book “Bullshit Jobs: A Theory” (2018), David Graeber argues that many contemporary jobs are ‘bullshit’. He means that people report their jobs as devoid of significance, and if such jobs never existed, it would not change anything in the world. While working on this book, Graeber received numerous emails from people across the world sharing their experiences of being employed in ‘bullshit jobs’. Reading these testimonies made it clear to me that for eight and a half years, I held a position within an organisation that matches this definition. It is not that I did not feel this was the case, but rather, this book and these testimonies showed me that my intuition was correct.

From 2013 to 2021, I worked in a global financial organisation. After a couple of years, the initial happiness of obtaining a white-collar job dissipated. I spent most of my time doing so-called “back office” jobs: “fraud prevention” and “compliance.” These job titles and descriptions came with an air of importance. However, behind this shiny veneer and the promise of an engaging and worthwhile experience, there was nothing but complete boredom and meaninglessness.

These jobs were (and are!) advertised, among other things, for creativity and decision-making, but in reality, there was none of that. All I had to do was follow a “rule book” or “what-to-do” guide, with little or no need to deviate from it. As a fraud prevention agent, my only task was to monitor transactions, trying to detect any fraudulent activity such as stolen identity or account. While sometimes there was such activity, most of the time, there was nothing of this sort (I would say around 95% of cases were not fraudulent). At this ratio, and considering that I had to do this work for ten hours daily, the job was completely dull. I even hoped to find any sign of fraudulent activity but with no luck most of the time. So, in short, my everyday job was to sit and monitor transactions for ten hours a day, in most cases with no action at all. Most of the time, it seemed there was no point in me even being there. Needless to say, the fraud prevention department was soon terminated due to automation (what a surprise!).

Subscribe now

I then ended up in the compliance department, where my job was to onboard individual and business customers. The daily tasks were to review customers’ documents (IDs and utility bills mainly) and approve or disapprove them. Again, I had to execute strictly prescribed actions, which were pretty simple: look at the docs, tick the box, click “approve” (or disapprove), copy-paste a standard note, and repeat. And again, I had to do it for ten hours daily. At this stage, I was consumed by not only boredom but a sense of futility and meaninglessness. What am I doing this for? Do people really need this? If it were not for Central Bank regulations, nobody would have cared about it. Nothing would have changed in people’s lives if this job did not exist.

Furthermore, it seemed to me that somebody could have done these jobs in about four hours a day with some effort. However, you are not allowed to leave the workplace; you must stay in the office for another six hours, pretending to be doing something worthwhile. Maybe I should not complain because it allowed me time for my education. But I could easily do this work at home! What is the point of me being in the office doing nothing of value for the employer?

I also began to see the office environment as artificial, meaningless, and even ridiculous—countless meetings that rarely achieved anything useful. (Although, they effectively wasted another hour or so of my six hours “doing nothing” in the office). People walking through the office hugging their laptops with one hand while holding a cup of coffee in the other with the overwhelming self-perception of immense importance while doing, in many cases, the same meaningless, boring jobs; team leaders that try to steer you in the “right” direction, trying to motivate you, albeit with no success in many cases, to “improve” you, trying to convince you to look positively on the boredom consuming you.

Everything the company does is for profit, and I, as an employee, was a part of it. My work did not contribute anything of value to society, nor did it change people’s lives for the better. I was there just to help make money by preventing the loss of money. Depression became a normal state of my daily life. Seeing other people so enthusiastic about their careers in the office, I began to think that something was probably wrong with me and not with the job. However, some people I worked with confessed to me that they felt the same, and while I was consoled that I was not alone in this predicament, it was even worse due to the realisation that many people in the same office feel the same about their jobs but still work there.

If people asked me back then, “What do you do for a living?” I would be embarrassed to answer. Perhaps many people were proud that they held such positions with fancy titles, but for me, it was like confessing that for eight and a half years, I had been doing something futile without any meaning whatsoever.

On the other hand, it was an important experience after all. It showed me that I must avoid such jobs in the future and look for a more meaningful endeavour. I think that most of us will agree that nothing can be more meaningful than doing something useful for society and people. This can be achieved in many different ways. While the majority of ‘bullshit jobs’ are highly paid, at the end of the day, I believe it is nothing compared to the feeling of satisfaction when what you do has a positive impact on the people around you.

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In this week’s episode, we’re discussing David Graeber, anthropologist and activist, who introduced the concept of "bullshit jobs" in a 2013 article in Strike Magazine titled “On The Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs”. He hit a nerve and later expanded into a full book titled Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, published in 2018. Graeber defines a "bullshit job" as a form of employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence. At the same time, they feel obliged to pretend that this is not the case. He argues that these jobs have proliferated due to societal and economic factors that prioritise employment for its own sake, rather than for the productive contributions it may offer people and society. He also discusses second-order bullshit jobs; the ones that are created to support the higher-order bullshit jobs. Think about the cleaners, security staff, electricians and plumbers needed to maintain a building filled with people administering speculative investments.

There are five categories of bullshit jobs according to Graeber;

1. Flunkies: These jobs exist primarily to make others feel important. They involve employees who serve to make their superiors feel like their position or office has prestige and status. Examples might include receptionists, administrative assistants, and door attendants whose roles are more about projecting a sense of importance than performing tasks critical to the organization.

2. Goons: These jobs are adversarial in nature and exist because other companies employ them. Goons include lobbyists, PR specialists, telemarketers, and corporate lawyers, whose primary functions are to outmanoeuvre competitors or manipulate public perceptions and opinions in ways that are not necessarily aligned with the public good.

3. Duct Tapers: These employees are tasked with fixing problems that should not exist or could be resolved if proper systems were in place. Essentially, they are there to patch or cover up avoidable flaws within the organization. IT support that continually fixes the same recurring problem or administrative staff who compensate for glitches in organisational procedures are examples of duct tapers.

4. Box Tickers: These are jobs that involve creating the appearance that something useful is being done when it really isn't. This could include survey administrators, compliance officers, or corporate auditors who conduct assessments that have no real impact on the company’s or agency’s effectiveness but are there to satisfy external requirements or internal policy.

5. Taskmasters: These roles are divided into two sub-types: those who manage or create extra work for those who do not need it, and those who themselves do nothing but create unnecessary tasks for others. This includes middle management roles where the primary function is to supervise people who do not need supervision or generate reports that no one reads.

Graeber argues that meaningless, soulless jobs not only cause severe psychological distress but also represent a misallocation of economic resources and human potential. His theory has implications for understanding organisational inefficiencies, worker dissatisfaction, and the societal value placed on work.

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters
Send us a Tip
Get some Sunday Letters merch
Subscribe on YouTube

When it comes to living a successful life, we generally see competition as necessary and unavoidable. We hardly ever question it. If you want to do well, then you’ll need to work harder than almost everyone else. This is because the pie is only so big, and you must get there first if you want to survive. The idea is pervasive in our individualistic, Western industrialised countries, but is is accurate?

This is the question and I have been discussing this week. Dmitri wrote on The Distortion of Darwin, and how perhaps the Darwinian idea of ‘survival of the fittest’ wasn’t the full picture. Maybe it suited certain political and economic interests, and through clever marketing, we eventually came to believe it as a first principle.

The Podcast

We’re trialling video direct in podcast episodes here on Substack, and you can check that out in Episode 003. In this week’s episode, we ask, are human beings inherently competitive or more socially oriented and naturally cooperative? The question is important because the workplace seems primarily oriented towards competition. We compete for a limited number of clients and projects, departments within the same organisation may be adversaries, and workers are encouraged to compete for recognition, bonuses and promotions. In parallel, we also find workers in these same situations cooperate, albeit reluctantly at times, to achieve goals and get things done.

Get The Podcast Here;

Substack
Apple
Google
Amazon
Spotify

We’re on YouTube

Subscribe on YouTube

Support Sunday Letters

There are no adverts or paid promotions on Sunday Letters, and we’d like to keep it that way, but we need your support to achieve that. We’ve chosen a couple of ways for you to do that.

🛒 Get some Sunday Letters merch

💁‍♂️ Offer a one-off tip

👨‍💻 Become a paid subscriber

📝 Buy a friend a subscription

Help Us Spread The Word

If you enjoy The Sunday Letters Journal, invite your friends and family to subscribe. If you refer friends, you will receive benefits that give you special access to The Sunday Letters Journal.

How to participate

1. Share The Sunday Letters Journal. You'll get credit for new subscribers when you use the referral link below or the “Share” button on any post. Send the link in a text or email, or share it on social media with friends.

Refer a friend

2. Earn benefits. When your friends use your referral link to subscribe (free or paid), you'll receive the following complimentary subscription period.

• Get 1-month complimentary subscription for 3 referrals given

• Get 3-month complimentary subscription for 5 referrals given

• Get 6-month complimentary subscription for 25 referrals given

To learn more, check out Substack’s FAQ.

One prominent feature of capitalist societies is competition. Its spirit permeates many areas of modern human life: college admissions processes, elections, markets, and work applications (and, consequently, promotion within an organisation) are just a few examples. The main characteristic of this competitive environment is that people within it are pitted against each other. In the pursuit of personal aspirations, a person is compelled to undermine the other.

It feels like this state of affairs is undesirable. Why not cooperate with others to achieve goals? Interestingly, it turns out that most people embrace the idea that competition is good. The population of a large number of countries has been surveyed by the World Value Survey since the 1980s, and data shows that a significant majority of people consider competition to be ‘good’ rather than ‘harmful’ (see Figure 1.).

Our perceived ‘goodness’ of competition is because, over the last three centuries, competitive organisation of the economy has been “enthusiastically advertised as a source of stability, progress, efficiency, justice, equality, harmony, freedom, diversity and healthy individualism…” (Dennis, 1977)1. This outlook dominates people’s opinions so that, for some reason, they neglect the other part of the story. Dennis (1977) suggests that proponents of the counter view condemn competition “as a source of instability, poverty, inefficiency, injustice, inequality, alienation, coercion, and insecurity”.

Furthermore, there is a widespread belief that competition is an innate feature of human nature. This belief hinges largely on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution2, particularly on the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’. This concept emphasises the role of competition for limited resources in shaping the evolution of any species. It implies that humans act in their own self-interest, striving to enhance their reproductive opportunities, or at least those of their immediate kin. There seems to be a problem, however, with this belief.

Darwin’s main concern lay in the domain of biology, namely how to scientifically explain the origin and flourishing of life on Earth and its differentiation into species3. However, his theory was extended beyond the domain of biology to the domains of social sciences and economics. The expression’ survival of the fittest’ frequently attributed to Darwin does not stem directly from his work per se but from Herbert Spencer’s 1864 work, Principles of Biology4. Spencer applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to the domain of sociology. He believed that species in the natural world compete with each other, so, by analogy, the same applies to the human race.

We can also see the application of Darwin’s theory in evolutionary economics. For instance, proponents of the school of Generalised Darwinism specify three general principles:

1. Variation

2. Inheritance, and

3. Selection.

These principles are no longer biological but ontological and, hence, generalised (ontological principles pertain to fundamental ideas about the nature of being or existence, as opposed to biological, which are scientific concepts that pertain to the study of living organisms and their processes). In a sense, these principles are fundamental to nature (not just the biological side of it). According to this school of thought:

In short, according to this view, these three generalised Darwinian principles can be applied to any field or domain of human activity.

We can see that Darwin’s theory of evolution, particularly the feature of competition, was applied to the domains beyond biology. However, extending principles beyond the proper domain should always be done cautiously. For example, Mesoudi (2011) argues that evolutionary processes in biology and cultural evolutionary processes do not necessarily overlap5. A significant proportion of phenomena within the field of human culture is not Darwinian.

Moreover, proponents of Generalised Darwinism appear to concentrate on a particular and limited interpretation of evolutionary theory, emphasising concepts such as replication, rivalry, and competition, as if these elements constitute the entirety of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Due to this extension of biological principles to other domains, a misleading and partial interpretation of Darwin’s theory spread in mainstream and popular culture. Heightened self-interest and competition with other members of society became almost a prerequisite for living. This interpretation focuses “on selfish and greedy behaviours, supposed to be intrinsic to humans, and on the idea that rivalry and greed, to the detriment of the co-specific competitors, are a natural evolutionary heritage of Homo sapiens” (Portera, 2016; p. 125).

But is evolution possible only in terms of competition? I would argue that it is not. Competition is not the only mode of behaviour in our socio-economic environment. There is an innate tendency within our species to provide mutual assistance to one another and a tendency for empathy and altruism towards others.

In his book Mutual Aid6, Petr Kropotkin (1976) presents an alternative perspective on the notion of ‘survival of the fittest’. Drawing from his fieldwork in Siberia and his analysis of evolutionary theory’s implications, he proposes the following thought experiment: what is more conducive to species’ survival – mutual aid or ruthless competition among each other? If we consider it, mutual aid appears to provide a more significant survival advantage than competition. This is because species that can work together, support and protect each other have more chances to survive and reproduce than those that constantly compete. Although Kropotkin acknowledges that competition exists, he argues it is limited to exceptional situations, as “natural selection continually seeks out ways of avoiding competition as much as possible” (Kropotkin, 1976, 74). Therefore, what makes a species survive is the opposite of competition.

Kropotkin extends his analysis beyond the broad examination of “survival of the fittest” in the animal kingdom, emphasising the human species. His argument is threefold. His first point is that given nature’s overall inclination towards mutual assistance, it would be unusual for humans to deviate from this pattern. It would seem odd if humans, initially so vulnerable, did not rely on mutual support like other animals but instead engaged in fierce competition for personal gain. He then turns to insights from anthropology. By examining human groups that resemble our ancestors, he challenges the belief that human existence is in constant conflict. Instead, he highlights that throughout the paleo-ethnology of humanity, individuals lived in societies similar to those of highly developed mammals. Kropotkin suggests that these societies are characterised by bands or tribes rather than isolated families and represent the earliest form of human organisation.

It is important to note that our innate tendency to be cooperative, altruistic and empathetic does not preclude us from having opposing tendencies. In particular, Struhl (2016) highlights our tendency to be competitive7. These tendencies toward competition and cooperation seem to coexist with each other. But what is meant by a ‘tendency’? We can think of it as biological potentialities. While specific genes determine some structures in the brain, most brain structures result from the interaction between genes and the environment. In other words, we, as a human species, are not biologically determined to be either competitive or cooperative. These are just potentialities (or tendencies) that genes manifest in a particular environment. It is no surprise that nowadays, we consider ourselves competitive because our socio-economic environment facilitates the expression of competitive tendencies rather than cooperative ones.

To summarise, we live in a socio-economic environment where competition is the predominant mode of our day-to-day behaviour. Moreover, the majority embrace competition and consider it to be ‘good’. This attitude towards competition, however, can be due to a misleading and distorted interpretation of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Competitiveness is just one of the tendencies or potentialities, but there is another – the tendency to cooperate. These tendencies coexist, and genes manifest these tendencies according to the environment in which we live. Is it not preposterous to accept the ‘fact’ that we are competitive creatures rather than to change our environment to facilitate the expression of cooperative tendencies? While we cannot completely eradicate competition from our nature, we can, at least, promote a society in which cooperation will be the predominant mode of our daily lives.

This week’s podcast discusses the apparent dichotomy of competition and cooperation in life and work. Check out the episode and subscribe on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, or here on Substack.

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In this week’s episode, and I discuss one of the fundamental dichotomies of human behaviour: cooperation versus competition. Are human beings inherently competitive, or are we more socially oriented and naturally cooperative? The question is important because the workplace seems primarily oriented towards competition. We compete for a limited number of clients and projects, departments within the same organisation may be adversaries, and workers are encouraged to compete for recognition, bonuses and promotions. In parallel, we also find workers in these same situations cooperate, albeit reluctantly at times, to achieve goals and get things done.

Ultimately, however, jobs require people to be agents of the profit-seeking organisation within a system of apparently limited resources. Making a profit is necessary, but the competition for it never stops, and it’s rarely shared equally among those who generate it (although that’s a topic for another day). Businesses, especially larger corporate ones, are never satisfied, and they demand that you and I, in our jobs, keep pushing for more. They squeeze as much as they can out of every human being, often until we are dry, broken husks of people. In this sense, we work in the metaphorical vice of competition for what are perceived as limited resources (again, a topic for another day).

The Capitalists argue that competition is good for society; it has given us all the technology, goods and services we take for granted. It has improved living conditions and made life better for all, or so the argument goes. Socialists offer a counterargument - competition has destroyed the fabric of life, raped and pillaged the planet, treated human beings and the natural world as objective means to material ends, and will kill us all. Cooperation and mutual aid, they say, are the keys to our survival.

Capitalists suggest that the key to economic success is ‘fair’ competition. Once there is fair competition, it will stimulate creativity, innovation, economic growth and jobs for all. Who could argue with that? The only thing is, this seems to be more of a marketing message than reflective of the truth. Vested interests flout the law, vie for advantage at every turn and employ aggressive, underhanded tactics to get what they want. Global investment funds modify the trajectory of markets with big buy-and-sell plays. Large companies buy smaller ones, and slowly but surely, the global conglomerate becomes less prone to influence from any single national agency. Once they are global, they can do what they like. Many organisations demand a certain level of productivity from their staff, and if you find yourself in the bottom 10 per cent of productivity, you’re out.

In addition, the impact of their activities on people and the environment are treated as externalities, acceptable costs incurred in the competitive process, which will, they say, eventually level out1. In this purely objectivist view of reality, compensation for these “acceptable costs” hardly ever seem to be paid by the organisations that initiate them. As if monetary compensation can counter the psychological and emotional damage to a family or broader community when the primary breadwinners lose their jobs, when the water system in a town is poisoned2, or a river in the Amazon is polluted beyond recovery3. See for more on this latter point.

The Capitalist imperative is built on the premise that competition is good. But as we discuss in this episode, another question arises here: Is there competition at the top of the heap, or is it only for all of us? In this sense, the big boys seem to collaborate in their deceit and manipulation of markets and the workplace. The global economic crash of 2008 and its aftermath illustrate this perfectly. The speculative financial markets not only broke the systems almost completely, but they also took public bailout money, and pretty much no one of significance went to prison. As we can see, profit at all costs is the driving feature of the system, so why should any of this surprise us? Leo E. Strine, Jr., American attorney and retired judge for the state of Delaware, wrote the following after a decision in the eBay v. Newmark case from a few years ago4.

Side note: eBay was a minority shareholder in Craigslist, and the founders had set out to ensure that any future takeover attempt by eBay did not modify Craigslist’s community and social culture. The court found, however, that Craigslist’s social imperative breached its fiduciary duty by unfairly disenfranchising eBay as a minority shareholder. My words are in parentheses below.

“Although I am sympathetic to many of the sentiments and policy concerns that motivate these dismayed reactions [the outrage against ethical and moral breaches made by for-profit corporations], I confess to being weary of the naïveté they manifest. More importantly, the continued failure of our societies to be clear-eyed about the role of the for-profit corporation endangers the public interest. Instead of recognising that for-profit corporations will seek profit for their stockholders using all legal means available [and illegal means once they think they can get away with it], we imbue these corporations with a personality and assume they are moral beings capable of being “better” in the long run than the lowest common denominator. We act as if entities in which only capital has a vote will somehow be able to deny the stockholders their desires, when a choice has to be made between profit for those who control the board’s reelection prospects and positive outcomes for the employees and communities who do not.”

Competition and cooperation can work together to afford everyone the same opportunities and benefits. I have seen it working in the domain of sport all my life and see no reason why it can’t work successfully in the domain of daily work. However, the problem seems to be twofold. First, many of us believe in the scarcity myth—there simply isn’t enough to go around (what bullshit!). Others who hold power and control are obsessed with self-interest, are perhaps even psychopathic, and have little or no empathy for others. The latter, I believe, is our biggest challenge.

Article Download

373KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Rival Views On Economic Competition by Timur Ergen and Sebastian Kohl October 2020

Download

References