Blog

The word “neoliberalism” is thrown around in many leftist circles. In many centrist circles it is complained about as an empty term. To me it has a meaning, although others will disagree with my definition.

A liberal, as far as political economy goes, believes in letting free markets determine social outcomes with minimal intervention from the state. A neoliberal believes in using the power of the state to force the social outcome that a free market, if only such a thing were possible, would have delivered. Neoliberalism is coercion trying to simulate freedom, on some definition of “freedom”.

What are its consequences?

Continue reading “Neoliberalism and the Planet” →

Update: Brian Romanchuk has written an excellent response to my post here.

J.E. Gordon’s excellent old book, The Science of Strong Materials: Or Why You Don’t Fall Through the Floor, calls an arch “an apparent impossibility”.

Why does an arch seem impossible? Imagine building an arch from one side. Each wedge-shaped stone (or “voussoir” as it’s technically called) is held in place by the one above it. But this means that each voussoir you try to lay (besides the first, or maybe the first two) must fall. You can put another on to hold it in place, but then there will be nothing to hold up this new voussoir.

Continue reading “How the Engineering of Arches Explains Money” →

Hamzah Fansuri was a 16C philosopher from Sumatra*, who wrote Sufi-inspired prose and poetry in Malay.

* Correction: having started reading the thesis mentioned below, I have learnt that while Fansuri likely lived in Barus (Sumatra), there is reason to think he was born in what was called “Shahr Nawi” (Ayutthaya), in modern-day Thailand.

This 800 PAGE (!!) PhD thesis by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas includes a Romanised edition of Hamzah’s three prose works and English translations: https://archive.org/details/themysticismofhamzahfansuri…

A video interview with al-Attas (on Islamic thought in general, not in Hamzah Fansuri) can be found here:

Some socialists are “market” socialists, others are “planning” socialists. “Planning” usually means central planning, though not always. Robin Hahnel and others have for a while been advocating a system of democratic economic planning, though I think it would be fairest to say that this is somewhere in between a planning and a market system. The rough idea is that different social units – individuals, workers’ councils, neighbourhood “consumption councils”, federations, etc. – submit information about what they would like to consume and what work they are willing to do, then receive back a set of indicative prices based on the inputs offered and outputs demanded. In light of these prices (which they most likely won’t accept) they revise their offers – e.g. increasing the work supplied or reducing the goods demanded – and, feeding in these new offers, receive back a new set of indicative prices. The process iterates until some critical mass of units have accepted the resulting prices.

Continue reading “Shadow Socialism” →

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of St Andrews. I completed my PhD in Philosophy at Birkbeck in 2012. I had a wonderful time there, and without the opportunity Birkbeck provided me I would never have been able to end up in my current position. I would like, first of all, to express my gratitude for the institution and everything it stands for. I am also keen to help make sure that others after me have the same opportunity that I did.

Continue reading “My Letter to Birkbeck’s VCs on cuts to Philosophy” →