Sacred Economics – Life After Capitalism

May 8th, 2012 by stuartbramhall in End of Capitalism, The Global Economic Crisis

sacredeconomics

Sacred Economics: Money, Gift & Society in the Age of Transition

Charles Eisenstein

2011,  Evolver Editions

(This review is divided into two sections. The first covers Part I: The Economics of Separation, describing the history of money and capitalist economics. The second half covers some intriguing fixes Eisenstein proposes for our broken economic system in Part II: The Economics of Reunion and Part III: Living the New Economy.)

Book Review – Part I

The title Sacred Economics makes Eisenstein’s book sound like a New Age treatise on spirituality. The book is actually about the end of capitalism. It offers an extremely well-researched discussion of the history of money, capitalist economics and the world wide movement for economic re-localization. The main focus of Part I is an exploration of the profound effect money has on human thinking and psychology. Eisenstein is most concerned about the illusion of separateness and of scarcity. Both, he argues, are mistaken beliefs that can be traced back to the privatization of communally owned land, an early consequence of the introduction of money.

Owing to his determination to avoid simplistic clichés about greedy corporate CEOs and amoral banksters, Eisenstein arrives at some startling conclusions. By tracing the western conception of money back to its earliest origins in ancient Greece, he makes a strong case that the money system itself is responsible for rapacious growth and resource depletion, greed and the demise of community.

How Money Destroyed the Gift Economy

The book begins by describing the gift economy that has characterized all primitive cultures. Public gift giving was a major social ritual in all early societies. It was the primary mechanism early human communities employed to satisfy basic survival needs. As civilizations became more complex, gift exchange and barter were impractical over long distances. Thus money was introduced as a common medium of exchange. Because money also represented stored value, it also had a profound effect on our perception of ourselves, other human beings and society.

The Illusion of Scarcity

An early artifact of the introduction of money was the mistaken belief that the basic necessities of life are in short supply. This illusion underpins all western economic theory. In fact many textbooks define economics as the study of human behavior under conditions of scarcity. As Eisentein points out, this is a ludicrous notion in a world in which vast quantities of food, energy and raw materials go to waste He links the illusion of scarcity to the illusion of the “discrete and separate self.” This, in turn, stems from the concept of personal wealth and the privatization of communally owned land. Prior to Roman times, land, like air and water, was considered part of the commons and couldn’t be owned. Under Roman tradition, there was no way for an “individual” (a Greek invention related to the concept of money and personal wealth) to legitimately take possession of common lands. Thus the Roman aristocracy must have seized it by force, just as the English stole the communally owned lands of Native Americans.

During the many centuries our ancestors had access to communal lands for their herds and crops, they enjoyed a sense of interconnectedness and interdependency. This was lost when the wealthy began fencing it off as private property. Many sociologists believe this loss of interconnectedness has left all of us with a fundamental inner emptiness we experience as never having enough.

The Origin of Greed

Eisenstein attributes greed to this illusion of scarcity. He can see no other explanation for the extreme generosity of poor people (according to numerous studies), in contrast to the wealthy. Low income people give away far more money, relative to income, than their rich contemporaries. Studies also show that rich people worry much more about money than anyone else. This, in turn, makes them even more inclined to perceive scarcity when none exists. Einstein talks about the immense anxiety people in rich countries experience over “financial security.” No matter how much they accumulate, it’s never enough.

Debt, Usury and Perpetual Growth

Sacred Economics argues that what economists commonly refer to as growth is the expansion of scarcity into areas of life once characterized by abundance. Fresh water, which was once abundant, has become scarce following its transformation into a commodity we have to pay for.

The fractional reserve banking system, which allows bankers to create money out of thin air – as debt – accentuates the pressure to convert more and more of the commons into commodities. Because the debt and interest created is always greater than the money supply (current global debt is estimated at $75 trillion, in contrast to global wealth of $30 trillion), there is always constant pressure to create more goods and services to repay it. This explains why there are always people willing to cut down the last forest and catch the last fish.

Extreme wealth inequality occurs because economic growth is always lower than the rate of interest. When debtors can’t make interest payments by producing new goods and services, they are forced to turn over more and more existing wealth to creditors.

As natural resources, such as fossil fuels, minerals, forests, fish and water, are rapidly converted to commodities, a similar transformation occurs in the social, cultural and spiritual commons. Stuff that was free throughout all human history – stories, songs, images, ideas, clever sayings – are copyrighted or trademarked to enable them to be bought and sold.

According to Einstein, the main reason for the world’s current financial crisis is that we continue to face mountains of increasing debt – yet have run out natural, cultural, social and spiritual capital we can convert to money to repay it.

To be continued, with a discussion of some of Eisenstein’s novel solutions.

4 Comments

  • Jeanette Elley

    Thanks Stuart. Fascinating stuff! However, I don’t think I quite agree with his definition of greed. That’s too simplistic. My theory is that there are more complex psychological factors at play here, specifically to do with status.

    It seems to me that a rich person’s obsession with money is not about the loss of money so much as the loss of status.
    Money is a proxy for status in our society so this human desire to “climb the hierarchy” needs to be taken into consideration when critically analysing our various societal systems, including our monetary system.

  • Hi Jeanette, I have tried to use one sentence to to sum up what Eisenstein says in about ten pages. What he describes is definitely consistent with what I have found in 30 years of working with wealthy people in psychotherapy. Eisenstein is right about them being obsessed about financial security and the possibility of some calamity that will cause them to lose substantial amounts of money. I haven’t really encountered any wealthy clients who consciously worry about social status or losing it. For the most part they are born into wealthy families in which privilege and status are taken for granted. In fact, those who experience a sudden loss of wealth (losing it through the commodities market was most common) still expect to enjoy the social privileges they have grown up with. It seems to be a rude shock that most of their friends want nothing to do with them when they no longer have money.

    The main reason I reviewed this book was because of the elegant way Eisenstein describes negative interest money as a remedy for recession, depression and deflation. I discuss this in Part II.

  • I’m enjoying your discussion, and the book. I’d encourage Jeanette to read it also if it sounds interesting so far– Charles does also discuss the status drive, and how in the models he suggests, status is achieved more through what you give to others rather than what you accumulate.

  • [...] opinion piece by Charles Eisenstein (author of Sacred Economics – which I reviewed back in May) from the UK Guardian This is the first commentary I have seen in the mainstream questioning the [...]