Market utopianism supposes a price-setting market in human beings without a society. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Greece and the birth of fiscal colonialism

Greece is caught in a vicious debt cycle that leads to a perpetual need for stimulus.

It is often noted that Athens is the birthplace of democracy. The city is less often credited as the cradle of the market economy. Maritime trade linked the port towns of the ancient Mediterranean, between which cargo was transported according to an insurance system beyond political control. Over time, Athens became dependent on imported food for survival. Regulations were brought in to stem rising inequality, including restrictions on usury, fixed prices for bread and constraints on property sales. And yet inequality increased.

As the volume of maritime trade grew, so did the wealth of its merchants. The link between the maritime economy and territorial democracy was debt. Free citizens lost their oikos, or family home, and became indentured slaves. Power, land and wealth was concentrated among a group that the Greeks called oligarchs. To this day, there is a constitutional guarantee that the Greek state will not tax shipowners on their earnings.

The origins of globalisation – the face-off between territorial democracy and international capital – are to be found in Athens. This power struggle intensified under the Roman empire. The sea lanes were every bit as important in the formation of the imperial system as the Roman roads.

Yet, as the nation state ultimately replaced the city state, free-flowing capital remained difficult to domesticate. This underpins the left’s enthusiasm for the European project, which developed in the 1980s as a transnational means to constrain promiscuous capital. It has not worked out that way.

There is something degenerate about the politics of Greek debt. It is as though nothing has been learned in 2,000 years – as if the left had forgotten the powers of capital and imperialism and the right cannot make a distinction between the financial economy and productivity.

We are being asked to choose between two failed dogmas: debt-based socialism and market utopianism, neither of which is capable of generating value, neither of which resists the reduction of human beings to commodity status by developing labour value and the virtues of loyalty and trust essential to any relationship.

The narrative that suggests that fiscal discipline was the cause of German economic success after the Second World War, without reference to workers on boards, a vocational labour market, self-governing cities and regional banks, is a distortion. Germany has not established its system of democratic vocational and corporate governance practices. In Gramscian terms, it is dominant without being hegemonic.

Unsustainable contradictions are now in play. Without a recognition of what was wrong with the formation of the euro and the overall direction of the EU, there will be no resolution to the conflict between debt and democracy. Political violence and mass unemployment are now possibilities in Europe. Fascism is the logical next step.

Market utopianism supposes a price-setting market in human beings without a society. Welfare statism, which is what left politics has become, has no place for society or capital. Both are bankrupt. Permanent Keynesianism and limitless debt spending are a nasty place for a political economy to be, in permanent bad faith and servitude. There is a double tragedy here. Since joining the EU, Greece has become an entirely monetised economy and so the value of its currency is of fundamental importance. In other words, it has become dependent on subsidies and imports. Outside the EU and the euro, it would have a standard of living closer to that of Bulgaria than of Belgium.

Syriza has pursued an entirely incoherent strategy of simultaneous resistance and surrender. Greece is caught in a vicious debt cycle that leads to a perpetual need for stimulus. The result is what we now have: fiscal colonialism without political reciprocity. The wiser strategy would have been to surrender a semblance of national democracy in favour of the German social market system. The German system is pro-worker; its foreign policy is not. This is what the UK Labour Party should be challenging.

After the Second World War, the British occupying power in North Rhine-Westphalia, under the supervision of Ernest Bevin, the Labour foreign minister, was a crucial force in brokering free and democratic trade unions, worker representation on boards and a vocational economy that defined the social market economy. It promoted labour value rather than debt in its political economy and a social democracy rather than an administrative state in its politics. Where is that British Labour Party now?

This article first appeared in the 16 July 2015 issue of the New Statesman, The Motherhood Trap

The Science & Society Picture Library
Show Hide image

This Ada Lovelace Day, let’s celebrate women in tech while confronting its sexist culture

In an industry where men hold most of the jobs and write most of the code, celebrating women's contributions on one day a year isn't enough. 

Ada Lovelace wrote the world’s first computer program. In the 1840s Charles Babbage, now known as the “father of the computer”, designed (though never built) the “Analytical Engine”, a machine which could accurately and reproducibly calculate the answers to maths problems. While translating an article by an Italian mathematician about the machine, Lovelace included a written algorithm for which would allow the engine to calculate a sequence of Bernoulli numbers.

Around 170 years later, Whitney Wolfe, one of the founders of dating app Tinder, was allegedly forced to resign from the company. According to a lawsuit she later filed against the app and its parent company, she had her co-founder title removed because, the male founders argued, it would look “slutty”, and because “Facebook and Snapchat don’t have girl founders. It just makes it look like Tinder was some accident". (They settled out of court.)

Today, 13 October, is Ada Lovelace day – an international celebration of inspirational women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). It’s lucky we have this day of remembrance, because, as Wolfe’s story demonstrates, we also spend a lot of time forgetting and sidelining women in tech. In the wash of pale male founders of the tech giants that rule the industry,we don't often think about the women that shaped its foundations: Judith Estrin, one of the designers of TCP/IP, for example, or Radia Perlman, inventor of the spanning-tree protocol. Both inventions sound complicated, and they are – they’re some of the vital building blocks that allow the internet to function. 

And yet David Streitfield, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, someow felt it accurate to write in 2012: “Men invented the internet. And not just any men. Men with pocket protectors. Men who idolised Mr Spock and cried when Steve Jobs died.”

Perhaps we forget about tech's founding women because the needle has swung so far into the other direction. A huge proportion – perhaps even 90 per cent - of the world’s code is written by men. At Google, women fill 17 per cent of technical roles. At Facebook, 15 per cent. Over 90 per cent of the code respositories on Github, an online service used throughout the industry, are owned by men. Yet it's also hard to believe that this erasure of women's role in tech is completely accidental. As Elissa Shevinsky writes in the introduction to a collection of essays on gender in tech, Lean Out: “This myth of the nerdy male founder has been perpetuated by men who found this story favourable."

Does it matter? It’s hard to believe that it doesn’t. Our society is increasingly defined and delineated by code and the things it builds. Small slip-ups, like the lack of a period tracker on the original Apple Watch, or fitness trackers too big for some women’s wrists, gesture to the fact that these technologies are built by male-dominated teams, for a male audience.

In Lean Out, one essay written by a Twitter-based “start-up dinosaur” (don’t ask) explains how dangerous it is to allow one small segment of society to built the future for the rest of us:

If you let someone else build tomorrow, tomorrow will belong to someone else. They will build a better tomorrow for everyone like them… For tomorrow to be for everyone, everyone needs to be the one [sic] that build it.

So where did all the women go? How did we get from a rash of female inventors to a situation where the major female presence at an Apple iPhone launch is a model’s face projected onto a screen and photoshopped into a smile by a male demonstrator? 

Photo: Apple.

The toxic culture of many tech workplaces could be a cause or an effect of the lack of women in the industry, but it certainly can’t make make it easy to stay. Behaviours range from the ignorant - Martha Lane-Fox, founder of, often asked “what happens if you get pregnant?” at investors' meetings - to the much more sinister. An essay in Lean Out by Katy Levinson details her experiences of sexual harassment while working in tech: 

I have had interviewers attempt to solicit sexual favors from me mid-interview and discuss in significant detail precisely what they would like to do. All of these things have happened either in Silicon Valley working in tech, in an educational institution to get me there, or in a technical internship.

Others featured in the book joined in with the low-level sexism and racism  of their male colleagues in order to "fit in" and deflect negative attention. Erica Joy writes that while working in IT at the University of Alaska as the only woman (and only black person) on her team, she laughed at colleagues' "terribly racist and sexist jokes" and "co-opted their negative attitudes”. 

The casual culture and allegedly meritocratic hierarchies of tech companies may actually be encouraging this discriminatory atmosphere. HR and the strict reporting procedures of large corporates at least give those suffering from discrimination a place to go. A casual office environment can discourage reporting or calling out prejudiced humour or remarks. Brook Shelley, a woman who transitioned while working in tech, notes: "No one wants to be the office mother". So instead, you join in and hope for the best. 

And, of course, there's no reason why people working in tech would have fewer issues with discrimination than those in other industries. A childhood spent as a "nerd" can also spawn its own brand of misogyny - Katherine Cross writes in Lean Out that “to many of these men [working in these fields] is all too easy to subconciously confound women who say ‘this is sexist’ with the young girls who said… ‘You’re gross and a creep and I’ll never date you'". During GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian was often called a "prom queen" by trolls. 

When I spoke to Alexa Clay, entrepreneur and co-author of the Misfit Economy, she confirmed that there's a strange, low-lurking sexism in the start-up economy: “They have all very open and free, but underneath it there's still something really patriarchal.” Start-ups, after all, are a culture which celebrates risk-taking, something which women are societally discouraged from doing. As Clay says, 

“Men are allowed to fail in tech. You have these young guys who these old guys adopt and mentor. If his app doesn’t work, the mentor just shrugs it off. I would not be able ot get away with that, and I think women and minorities aren't allowed to take the same amount of risks, particularly in these communities. If you fail, no one's saying that's fine.

The conclusion of Lean Out, and of women in tech I have spoken to, isn’t that more women, over time, will enter these industries and seamlessly integrate – it’s that tech culture needs to change, or its lack of diversity will become even more severe. Shevinsky writes:

The reason why we don't have more women in tech is not because of a lack of STEM education. It's because too many high profile and influential individuals and subcultures within the tech industry have ignored or outright mistreated women applicants and employees. To be succinct—the problem isn't women, it's tech culture.

Software engineer Kate Heddleston has a wonderful and chilling metaphor about the way we treat women in STEM. Women are, she writes, the “canary in the coal mine”. If one dies, surely you should take that as a sign that the mine is uninhabitable – that there’s something toxic in the air. “Instead, the industry is looking at the canary, wondering why it can’t breathe, saying ‘Lean in, canary, lean in!’. When one canary dies they get a new one because getting more canaries is how you fix the lack of canaries, right? Except the problem is that there isn't enough oxygen in the coal mine, not that there are too few canaries.” We need more women in STEM, and, I’d argue, in tech in particular, but we need to make sure the air is breatheable first. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.