One day, When the sun shines brightly over the hills, a grand gathering took place. The illustrious Prabu Puntadewa, ruler of this realm, decided it was time to engage in a spirited dialogue with seven brave srikandi and ksatriya of the quill—each wielding their pens like swords, ready to challenge the throne with questions that could shake the very foundations of the kingdom.
As the sun rose on that fateful Sunday, the knights arrived at the palace, each with their own unique flair:
The Watchful Owl: Known for her piercing gaze and sharp wit, she opened the floor by questioning Prabu Puntadewa about his kingdom's transparency. "How can we trust your reign if you hide behind walls of silence?" she hooted.
The Quick Silver Fox: With a sly grin, he pounced on the topic of military might and asked about the controversial TNI Bill. "Are you not afraid of awakening the sleeping giant within your own ranks?" he inquired, his eyes glinting with mischief.
The Steadfast Turtle: Slow and steady, he pondered over economic policies. "What do you say to your subjects struggling under heavy tariffs? Is this not a burden too great for them to bear?" he asked, his voice calm yet firm.
The Fiery Dragon: Breathing fire into the conversation, she raised concerns about social unrest. "Your people are restless! How will you quell their flames before they consume your throne?" she demanded, her scales shimmering with intensity.
The Cunning Chameleon: Changing colors with every question, he delved into foreign relations. "What about your dealings with distant lands? Are you not risking your kingdom’s prosperity for fleeting alliances?" he questioned, his tone both curious and critical.
The Wise Old Sage: With wisdom etched on his brow, he focused on governance. "What measures will you take to ensure that your advisors do not lead you astray? After all, a king is only as good as his council," he mused thoughtfully.
Prabu Puntadewa sat upon his throne, unflinching as each knight unleashed their inquiries. He acknowledged their concerns with a mix of humility and determination. "I take full responsibility for any missteps in my administration," he declared boldly. "If communication has faltered, it is I who must bear the weight of that failure."
He spoke of his commitment to reform and transparency while assuring them that he was not blind to the issues plaguing his realm. "Rest assured, I am here to listen and learn," he emphasized, hoping to quell their doubts.
The interview, scheduled for only two hours, lasted for more than three hours. As the sun began to set over Hambalang ups sorry, I meant Hastinapura, the knights departed with mixed feelings. Some were satisfied with Prabu Puntadewa's candidness; others remained skeptical about whether his words would translate into action. The air was thick with anticipation—would this be a turning point for the kingdom or merely another chapter in its ongoing saga?
In this satirical tale of dialogue and discovery, one thing remained clear: in a world where power meets inquiry, it is often the questions that reveal more than the answers ever could. And so, as each knight and srikandi returned to their respective realms, they carried with them not just answers but also a renewed sense of purpose—to hold their leaders accountable and ensure that no throne remains unchallenged. By the way, is Prabu Puntadewa who was interviewed really Yudistira? Or just a puppet played by Ki Dalang? Quoting "Manusia Merdeka", we will wait until the celebration of "Kartini Day".
Let's carry on!
In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (2003, Taylor & Francis e-Library), Joseph Schumpeter offers a unique perspective on how Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) interacts with economic systems, particularly within the framework of capitalism. Schumpeter's analysis is rooted in his broader theory of economic development and the dynamics of capitalism.
In his work, Schumpeter directly addresses the provocative question "Can Capitalism Survive?" and provides a clear answer: "No, I do not think it can." However, Schumpeter's response is nuanced and rooted in his analysis of capitalism's inherent dynamics rather than outright advocacy for its demise.
Schumpeter argues that capitalism's very success contains the seeds of its destruction. He does not foresee capitalism collapsing due to economic failure but rather because its social institutions—such as entrepreneurship, competitive markets, and private property—will erode over time.
Schumpeter introduces the concept of "creative destruction," where innovation disrupts existing industries and social structures. While this process drives economic progress, it also destabilizes traditional institutions and creates societal discontent.
Over time, capitalism rationalizes everything in its path, including the institutions that support it. This constant upheaval undermines the stability required for capitalism to thrive.
Schumpeter highlights the growing influence of intellectuals in advanced capitalist societies. As education becomes more widespread, intellectuals emerge as critics of capitalism, advocating for values hostile to free markets and private property. He argues that these critiques will shape public opinion against capitalism, fostering a climate where socialism becomes a viable alternative.
Schumpeter predicts that capitalism will evolve into corporatism—a system dominated by large firms and bureaucratic structures—which will stifle entrepreneurship and innovation. Eventually, democratic majorities will vote for welfare states and restrictions on private enterprise, paving the way for socialism as the "heir apparent" to capitalism.
Schumpeter also explores the question of whether socialism can work, offering both theoretical insights and critiques. His analysis is nuanced, examining socialism as an economic system while considering its practical challenges and societal implications. Schumpeter does not outright reject socialism as a viable system. Instead, he argues that socialism could emerge as the successor to capitalism due to capitalism's internal dynamics. He suggests that advanced capitalist societies may transition to socialism through democratic processes rather than revolutionary upheaval. However, his view of socialism is mixed and includes both potential strengths and significant weaknesses.
Schumpeter acknowledges that socialism could theoretically achieve better coordination of economic activities through central planning. By eliminating market fluctuations and focusing on collective welfare, socialism might address issues like unemployment and inequality more effectively than capitalism. Socialism promises to reduce class conflicts by transferring ownership of the means of production from private individuals to the collective. This could lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources. Schumpeter envisions socialism emerging through democratic mechanisms, such as the election of social democratic parties that implement welfare policies and regulate private enterprise gradually.
Schumpeter offers a distinctive and pragmatic view of democracy, diverging from the idealistic notions of the "classical" theory of democracy. Schumpeter rejects the classical theory of democracy, which assumes that governance is based on the "will of the people" or the pursuit of a "common good." He argues that such ideals are vague and unrealistic because people often lack clear preferences or sufficient knowledge to guide complex political decisions.
Instead, Schumpeter defines democracy as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide employing a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”. This definition emphasizes democracy as a procedural mechanism rather than an aspirational ideal.
Schumpeter's model of democracy is often referred to as an "elite theory." He suggests that voters’ primary role is to select leaders through elections, while the actual governance is carried out by political elites. In this view, democracy functions more as a competition among elites for leadership positions rather than as direct rule by the people. He argues that this model is more realistic because it acknowledges the limitations of voters' knowledge and rationality in complex policy matters.
Schumpeter asserts that socialism can coexist with democracy if certain conditions are met, such as a well-trained bureaucracy, cultural respect for democratic processes, and limited scope for political decision-making. However, he warns that socialism's centralized control over resources might lead to authoritarian tendencies if not carefully managed.
Schumpeter also addresses Marxist concepts like the "dictatorship of the proletariat," which refers to a transitional phase in Marxist theory where the working class seizes control of the state to dismantle capitalism and establish socialism. He critiques the practicality of a proletarian dictatorship, arguing that it would likely result in bureaucratic inefficiency and authoritarian governance rather than genuine empowerment of workers. He questions whether such a regime could sustain innovation or economic progress without devolving into centralized control that stifles individual initiative.
Schumpeter views socialism as inherently bureaucratic due to its reliance on centralized planning and control over production. He warns that this bureaucracy could lead to inefficiencies and alienation, similar to what might occur under a dictatorship of the proletariat. While Schumpeter acknowledges Marx's influence on socialist thought, he does not believe that socialism would emerge through revolutionary means or proletarian dictatorship. Instead, he predicts socialism will arise gradually through democratic processes as capitalist societies evolve toward welfare states.
David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011, Melville House) presents a sweeping historical and anthropological analysis of debt, challenging mainstream economic narratives about the origins and nature of money and credit. Graeber argues that debt is not merely an economic construct but a deeply social phenomenon that has shaped human relationships, institutions, and power structures throughout history. Graeber's central thesis is that debt predates money and barter, contrary to the standard economic narrative popularized by Adam Smith. He contends that early human societies operated on systems of credit and mutual obligation rather than barter, which he argues was largely a theoretical construct rather than a historical reality. Debt, in Graeber's view, emerged from these systems of trust and mutual aid within tight-knit communities. Barter, by contrast, was typically used in low-trust situations between strangers or in contexts of ritualized warfare. This perspective undermines the conventional linear progression from barter to money to credit systems, suggesting instead that credit systems were foundational to economic life.
Graeber also critiques the role of state violence in enforcing debt systems. He asserts that the transition from informal, community-based credit systems to formalized, mathematically precise debts often involved coercion and violence, typically backed by states through military or police power. He links the rise of coinage to the expansion of empires and large-scale slavery, describing what he calls the "military–coinage–slave complex." Coins were used to pay soldiers and enforce tax obligations, compelling populations to engage in monetary transactions under exploitative terms. This system institutionalized inequality and entrenched cycles of debt and servitude.
Another key critique Graeber offers is his rejection of the idea that markets are inherently free or natural. He argues that markets have historically been created and maintained through state intervention and violence rather than emerging organically from voluntary exchanges. In periods of relative peace, he notes, credit systems flourished as they were based on trust and mutual aid rather than coercion. For Graeber, this distinction challenges the capitalist narrative that equates markets with freedom.
Graeber's work also explores the moral dimensions of debt. He highlights how debt has been used as a tool of political manipulation throughout history, creating stark divides between creditors and debtors. He examines historical practices such as debt jubilees in ancient Mesopotamia, where rulers periodically canceled debts to prevent social unrest caused by widespread indebtedness. These practices contrast sharply with modern attitudes toward debt, which often stigmatize debtors while ignoring systemic inequalities.
In summary, Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years challenges mainstream economic narratives by arguing that debt is a fundamental social institution predating money and barter. He critiques the role of state violence in enforcing debt systems and questions the morality and political implications of modern economic structures. His work invites readers to reconsider the historical foundations of economies and the societal impact of debt as both a tool of oppression and a potential means of fostering community.
"The Economics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker’s Guide to Microeconomics" (2010, Bloomsbury Academic) by Rod Hill and Tony Myatt provides a comprehensive critique of traditional economics textbooks, aiming to challenge the mainstream presentation of microeconomic theories. The work argues that conventional economics textbooks often portray the discipline as an objective science, free from value judgments and based on universally accepted principles. Hill and Myatt contend that this depiction is misleading, is oversimplified, and fails to capture the complexity and controversies inherent in economic thought.
The authors highlight several issues in conventional texts, such as their tendency to idealize perfectly competitive markets despite evidence showing these markets are rare or nonexistent. They also critique the normative assumption that efficiency is an ultimate goal, pointing out its incompatibility with ecological concerns and real-world human behavior.
The authors debunk myths surrounding perfect competition and marginal productivity theory while emphasizing the importance of power dynamics, social context, and legal frameworks in shaping economic outcomes. They advocate for incorporating ethical considerations and environmental concerns into economic analysis, urging students to view economics as more than a technical science—more akin to an "art of persuasion".
The work avoids simplistic ideological critiques of capitalism and instead engages with mainstream economic thought using insights from prominent economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Kenneth Arrow. By doing so, it encourages critical thinking and provides readers with tools to decode traditional textbooks while exploring alternative theories omitted from standard curricula.
In The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (1944, Beacon Press), Karl Polanyi critiques the notion of a self-regulating market and emphasizes the significance of social relations in economic life. Polanyi argues that the idea of a self-regulating market, which treats land, labor, and money as mere commodities, is fundamentally flawed and utopian. He asserts that such a market system cannot exist without undermining the very fabric of society, as it subjects human life to the chaotic laws of the market rather than embedding economic activities within social relations.
Polanyi's critique is particularly directed at classical economists like Malthus and Ricardo, whose theories he believes promote a view of human beings as purely economic entities. He contends that this perspective ignores the complex social and cultural dimensions that shape economic behavior. Instead of viewing the economy as an autonomous sphere, Polanyi argues that it is deeply intertwined with social institutions and relationships. He posits that the rise of market society during the Industrial Revolution led to a disintegration of these social ties, resulting in widespread social calamity, which he describes as primarily cultural rather than merely economic.
Moreover, Polanyi introduces the concept of the "double movement," which refers to the societal response to the excesses of free markets. This movement reflects a pushback against the commodification of essential elements of life, highlighting how societies instinctively seek to protect themselves from the disruptive effects of unregulated markets. He emphasizes that true economic development cannot be achieved without recognizing and nurturing these social relations, suggesting that effective public policies must be informed by an understanding of cultural and institutional diversity.
In essence, Polanyi's work challenges mainstream economic assumptions by advocating for an approach that prioritizes social welfare over market efficiency. He argues that neglecting the social dimensions of economic life ultimately leads to crises, as evidenced by the political upheavals and economic disasters of his time, including fascism and the Great Depression. Thus, Polanyi's critique serves as a foundational argument for rethinking how economies are structured and understood within their broader social contexts.
In Economics for the Common Good (2017, Princeton University Press), Jean Tirole presents a compelling vision for how economists can engage more effectively with societal challenges, transforming their discipline into a force for collective welfare. Tirole, a Nobel laureate in economics, begins by critiquing the tendency of economists to focus narrowly on technical research published in academic journals, often detached from the pressing issues facing society. He argues that economists must step out of their intellectual silos and actively contribute to public debates, policy-making, and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Tirole suggests that economists can better serve society by addressing real-world problems such as climate change, unemployment, financial instability, and the challenges posed by globalization and digitalization. For instance, he advocates for practical solutions like implementing uniform carbon pricing to combat global warming effectively. This approach reflects his broader belief that economics should not merely analyze market efficiency but also provide actionable tools to resolve global crises.
A key element of Tirole's argument is the importance of understanding incentives and social contexts. He emphasizes that economic agents—whether individuals or policymakers—are influenced by social norms, networks, and institutional frameworks. Recognizing these dynamics allows economists to craft policies that align with human behavior and societal values. For example, he discusses how labor laws must adapt to modern economies shaped by technological advancements and globalization.
Tirole also calls for interdisciplinary approaches, integrating insights from sociology, political science, and other fields to address complex challenges like the European Union's economic disparities. He critiques the EU's rigid monetary policies that disproportionately affect struggling nations while proposing more cohesive strategies for political and economic union.
Ultimately, Tirole envisions a proactive role for economists in shaping policies that promote equity, sustainability, and innovation. By engaging directly with societal issues and making economic concepts accessible to the public, economists can transform their discipline into a tool for advancing the common good—a mission he passionately advocates throughout his work.
Anti-mainstream economists like Joseph Schumpeter, David Graeber, Polly Hill and Jack Myatt, Karl Polanyi, and Jean Tirole diverge from mainstream economics by challenging its foundational assumptions and expanding its scope to address broader societal, historical, and ethical dimensions. While mainstream economics, rooted in neoclassical thought, emphasizes rational actors, market efficiency, and mathematical modeling, these thinkers critique its limitations and propose alternative frameworks.
Anti-mainstream perspectives collectively reject the idea that markets are self-regulating systems driven solely by rational actors. Instead, they emphasize historical context, social norms, power dynamics, innovation, and ethical considerations—dimensions often overlooked by traditional economic models. Their work broadens the discipline's scope to better reflect complex real-world phenomena.
