Our language has not yet caught up with the political phenomenon that is emerging in Zuccotti Park and spreading across the nation, though it is clear that a political paradigm shift is taking place before our very eyes. It’s time to begin to name and in naming, to better understand this moment. So let me propose some words: “political disobedience.”
Occupy Wall Street is best understood, I would suggest, as a new form of what could be called “political disobedience,” as opposed to civil disobedience, that fundamentally rejects the political and ideological landscape that we inherited from the Cold War.
Civil disobedience accepted the legitimacy of political institutions, but resisted the moral authority of resulting laws. Political disobedience, by contrast, resists the very way in which we are governed: it resists the structure of partisan politics, the demand for policy reforms, the call for party identification, and the very ideologies that dominated the post-War period.
Read the rest at The New York Times Opinion
Occupy Wall Street’s ‘Political Disobedience’
by Bernard E. Harcourt, chair of the political science department and professor of law at The University of Chicago and author of “The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order.”
(h/t Kevin Fathi via email)
(h/t Kevin Fathi via email)
This is an important article for understanding what is going on now worldwide. This is a refusal to participate in existing institutions, rejecting them as immoral and rapacious. "Occupy Wall Street" suggests that the focus is financial and economic. However, Harcourt argues that it is more comprehensive than that, encompassing major social, political and economic institutions. In this sense the protests can be seen as the next step in the expansion of political liberalism, that is, further integration of liberty, equality, and solidarity.
It also answers Slavoj Zizek's harsh criticism of the European rioters, “opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself in the form of a realistic alternative, or even as a utopian project, but can only take the shape of a meaningless outburst,” Harcourt shows why he thinks that this entirely misses the point because it is trapped in what the protestors call "old thinking."
16 comments:
The occupy movements have made a number of demands, most of which are reformist. These demands are not "new", nor do they reflect "old thinking" - they are an attempt at finding solutions to perceived problems within the current context.
The status quo will continue so long as the 99% engage in "economic obedience".
The author of this article has no clue what alternatives to capitalism are, and neither do most of the protestors. One can only hope they are willing to learn.
@ Laura
Alternatives are being presented. See Mark Thoma, "Stephen Marglin Heterodox Economics". The video is from the Occupy Harvard Teach in.
Some MMT proponents and allies like MIchael Hudson and Bill Black have been lobbying the Occupy movement also.
But, right now, I would say it is the Ron Paul Austrian/Libertarian message vying with the Kucinich/AMI bill in the lead.
There is a vast body of literature on economic and political alternatives to neoliberalism (and its bastard half-brother New Keynesianism) already in existence and it has been under construction for years with contributors from around the world.
Occupy has hardly settled on a platform yet. That is supposed to be debated at the upcoming conference in July. Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands
Both the Tea Party and Occcupy are advocating a constitutional convention to revise the US Constitution.
And both the GOP and Democrats are bracing for an occupy of their national conventions, too.
It's still very early in the game.
An alternative to capitalism would be the Marxist critique. Most of heterodox economics is about reforming capitalism. Can you guess what mainstream economics is about?
The occupy movement is on the side of reform, ideologically speaking. In terms of economics, they are mainstream, mainly due to ignorance. There is also an effect known as deference to authority, or expertise.
The demands that have been circulated, unofficial or not, will hardly be 'new'. If the occupy movement doesn't do its homework, their demands will be limited. Lack of knowledge leads to an unquestioning belief in all sorts of falsehoods. The author of the article in question perpetuates some of them.
The 'game' we are in has no end, so I wouldn't care to say whether it is early or late - it is not too late to learn.
Here is an online course in Marxist class analysis:
http://rdwolff.com/content/marxian-class-analysis-theory-and-practice-online-course
The first part is about two hours. It may or may not affect the development of a future Occupy movement platform, or how we view society, but it will clear up some misconceptions.
@ Laura
There are alternatives to capitalism other than Marxist socialism. See, for example, participatory economics.
I think that most informed people would say that what we call "capitalism" today isn't. "Free market capitalism" is non-existent as far as I can see. What we have now is monopoly capitalism.
I don't think that most people involved with OWS are anti-capitalist from what I can determine. They are against the perversion of capitalism.
I really don't think it makes much sense talking about "what the protestors want" at this point. It does make sense to talk about what they don't want.
Did the founding fathers think through what was going to come after the revolution. At the outset, probably most of them were hoping for the best deal they could get from the Crown. When it became obvious that this wan't going to happen, they issued the Declaration of Independence.
After a surprising victory, they forged a nation in which the democratic populists were almost completely excluded and eventually suppressed by force, and the Constitution and founding institutions were fashioned by elite republicans, who enshrined a different sort of privilege.
We are now possibly at another turning point. No telling yet where this is headed.
Would Parecon give the producers of surplus (the workers) the right to decide how that surplus is distributed?
Central planning as practiced in the USSR did not. Their mode of production was a capitalist one, just as China's is today.
Marx identified five methods of distributing the surplus of production. All of them exist today, with capitalism being the dominant form in the workplace.
For the occupy movement to be anti-capitalist would require them to have a clear definition of 'what is capitalism'. God forbid we use the works of Marx to analyze the society we live in. We might draw different conclusions.
Classical economics was chiefly about rent extraction and how to limit it. Capitalism in Marx's economic (not social or political) sense is making money from money, that is, extracting rent from production, similar to extracting rent from land under feudalism.
This concern was brushed aside with the marginal revolution and the rise of New Classicalism, which was concerned chiefly with modeling.
As a result of the new focus since Marshall, understanding of rent has largely gone by the wayside. Michael Hudson, especially, is attempting to revive that discussion.
Hudson is popular among Occupy thinkers and there might be more knowledge of this among the more sophisticated occupiers than is realized.
There are essentially two ways of dealing with rent-seeking. Either disincentivize it, e.g., by "taxing it away" (Hudson), or else by restructuring the system to preclude it (e.g. Marx).
In my view, rent-seeking is the basis of many problems that we now face. Economic rent and excessive rent-seeking have compromised the production-distribution-consumption cycle that underlies the purpose of markets as described by Smith, namely, effectively and efficiently allocating scarce resources (materials, energy, labor, and capital) based on demand as expressed in competitive markets through price discovery. Under perfect competition, price approximates cost. There is no surplus available as rent. But perfect competition doesn't exist in the real world of people and stuff, only the ideal world of the mind.
As a result, through accumulation of economic rent, one class ("the 15") has been able to gain advantage over other classes ("the 99%"). Of course, there are other social, political and economic factors to be taken into consideration, too, but economically, rent is the biggie.
My solution would be to deal with economic rent by reconfiguring incentives instead of trying to completely overhaul the system. That would go a long way toward solving some of the major problems. Of course, there would still a mountain of other challenges to deal with, too.
I prefer radical solutions intellectually, but practically speaking, I don't see collective consciousness anywhere near that point yet. The demand seems to be for reform, not complete revision.
I think that in the end only complete revision will fill the bill, given developing global conditions, but we have a process to go through first before getting there. Generally a breakdown is required for a breakthrough.
So rent seeking is 'bad' (produces negative outcomes) while pursuit of profit is good ('efficient')? I don't think so.
A return to kinder, gentler capitalism will require constant vigilance. Else reforms will be undone, circumvented, and end in a repeat of the current crisis.
@ Laura
Profit (ROI) is defined as capitalists' income. Each factor receives its due share and no more and no less than its due based on contribution in a balanced system.
Cost of capital is added to other costs to arrive at total cost, which in a perfect or near perfect market closely approximates market price, according to Smith. Any surplus about this is rent, not profit. Theoretically, in a balanced system all factors are rewarded efficiently through market price in relation to total cost. This is the ideal of market capitalism, where entrepreneurs venture (risk) capital in a calculated expectation of commensurate reward. The operation of markets keep all factors aligned and in line with shifting consumer preferences.
Of course, the reality does not come close to the ideal because of market imperfections that skew the balance between price and total cost of production and distribution, including externalities.
The problem is not so much with "capitalism" as with the version of it that is operative. As I said previously, we now have "monopoly capitalism" under imperfect markets instead of "free market capitalism" under perfect or near perfect competition.
The result is social, political and economic oligarchy that distorts liberal democracy, which capitalism supposedly upholds. Instead, economic oligarchy (plutonomy) results in political oligarchy (state capture by the privileged).
A return to kinder, gentler capitalism will require constant vigilance. Else reforms will be undone, circumvented, and end in a repeat of the current crisis.
Well, look at what happened to Marx's socialism under "the dictatorship of the proletariat" that was supposed to be a temporary transition to a classless society. It got hijacked by thugs.
Just as there is no fool-proof system, so too there is not thug-proof system. Failure through ignorance and stupidity are one problem in a complex society, and capture of the state by a faction is another.
Civilization hangs by a thread.
Profit is defined as surplus value, which is appropriated by the capitalist. The cost of labour is determined by supply and demand as well as productivity. Labour is treated as a commodity. When there is an oversupply of labour, wages can be driven down. Since the 1970s, the share of profit has increasingly been captured by the employer, as wages have not kept pace with increases in productivity. The diminishing purchasing power of workers, supplemented with credit, is now affecting the consumer market.
Where is the 'balance' in capitalism? Competition forces the capitalist to pursue profit. The long term trend of competition is attrition, followed by sector monopolies. Whether there is 'perfect competition' along the way in terms of price doesn't affect the inevitability of market capture.
Capitalism has always been characterized by booms and busts, by inequality, by a struggle between workers and employers. There was supposedly a Goldilocks capitalism following the second world war and the 1970s. But conditions have changed: namely global competition and a glut of labour.
Let it die.
Well, look at what happened to Marx's socialism under "the dictatorship of the proletariat" that was supposed to be a temporary transition to a classless society. It got hijacked by thugs.
It wasn't Marx's socialism, it was the socialism of those who believed that redistributing power and property would bring about a better world. What was left intact was the method by which the surplus of production was appropriated and distributed. This is what Marx wrote about, and the aspect that continues to be ignored. There were no thugs denying workers control of their surplus, for the most part the request was never made, let alone conceived by the workers involved. They assumed that management would pass to representatives sent by the state, and that this was logical. According to Marx, this was capitalism.
Just as there is no fool-proof system, so too there is not thug-proof system. Failure through ignorance and stupidity are one problem in a complex society, and capture of the state by a faction is another.
Civilization hangs by a thread.
If you believe there is no alternative to capitalism, then it might seem that way.
Let it die.
What is your solution for a replacement and how could this be accomplished politically?
If you believe there is no alternative to capitalism, then it might seem that way
I think I've made clear that in my view there are alternatives to capitalism, as well as within capitalism.
1. I personally favor the gift economy and tribal organization, and I live in one with others that subscribe to this. However, this network is not large enough yet to take care of all needs by any means. But it is larger than many suspect and it is growing. (OWS is structured along these lines as was the countercultural movement).
2. A viable solution for the global economy in the 21st century has to be politically feasible. This is a project for this century.
3. A viable solution for the US, Europe, and UK also have be politically viable, and at present owing to crisis conditions.
4. Social, political and economic changes are based on shifts in collective consciousness. Social, political and economic systems cannot be imposed without serious obstacles. For a society to move on to a higher order of social, political and economic organization requires a a shift in collective consciousness that calls it forth naturally.
5. A society manifests the collective consciousness of its people. "The forest is green because the trees are green."
What is your solution for a replacement and how could this be accomplished politically?
1. Allow events to continue and hope for a financial > economic collapse.
2. Organize the production of goods and services on the basis of human need. This would include consideration of the state of our natural environment.
3. Democratize the economy in order to achieve #2. Marx described five methods or modes of production: capitalist, feudal, slavery, ancient and communist. The ancient (self employment) and communist modes are considered to be non-exploitative. A democratic economy would be one where the dominant mode(s) of production were non-exploitative. Decisions made on the basis of private profit would still exist, but at a much smaller scale. Capitalists would find themselves in competition with other modes of production.
4. Social, political and economic changes are based on shifts in collective consciousness. Social, political and economic systems cannot be imposed without serious obstacles. For a society to move on to a higher order of social, political and economic organization requires a a shift in collective consciousness that calls it forth naturally.
5. A society manifests the collective consciousness of its people. "The forest is green because the trees are green."
No single tree can make a forest, and no single tree can unmake one. It requires an event beyond its control, to effect change.
Peer e Kamil Novel
Tere Ishq ki Mujhko Aadat hai
Areej Shah Novels
Farhat Ishtiaq all Novels
Professor Shah Novel
Professor Khan Novel Season 1
Professor Khan Novel Season 2
Post a Comment