Neoconservatism and neoliberalism go hand in hand. Neoconservatism is about promoting "democratic" regimes throughout the world, with the proviso that democratically elected governments that do not meet its standard are not actually legitimate. This standard is neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is the doctrine that economic liberalism is identical with political liberalism, so that no country, even a democratically elected government, is truly "free" unless it's regime conforms to the neoliberal model of the market state versus the "welfare state," with the term welfare, which originally signified well-being, having been successfully tarred with a negative connotation implying unfairness.
The fact is that the welfare state, I would now prefer to call it the well-being state, is based on distributive justice aka fairness, whereas the market state demonstrably leads to growing inequality and social dysfunction that must be controlled by the establishment of a surveillance state and a police state — the antithesis of democracy and freedom — usually in the name of national security, preventing domestic terrorism, and "preserving law and order." Naomi Klein has called it "disaster capitalism." While its poster child was Chile under Pinochet (and Friedman and Hayek), it has come home to roost in the US, UK, and EZ now that the ruling elite no longer feels it necessary to co-opt the masses.
This is a recipe for fascism and very often it has been involved in sponsoring fascistic regimes.
This is a recipe for fascism and very often it has been involved in sponsoring fascistic regimes.
Counterpunch
Ismael Hossein-zadeh | Professor Emeritus of Economics, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa
Counterpunch
Washington Seeks Regime Change in Venezuela
Garry Leech | Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton University in Canada
Counterpunch
Ukraine, Omidyar and the Neo-Liberal Agenda
Chris Floyd, columnist for CounterPunch Magazine
Counterpunch
Washington Seeks Regime Change in Venezuela
Garry Leech | Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Cape Breton University in Canada
Counterpunch
Ukraine, Omidyar and the Neo-Liberal Agenda
Chris Floyd, columnist for CounterPunch Magazine
Thus Omidyar seems very much a part of the “neo-liberal order” which, as Patrick Smith noted above, the United States has been pushing “on a global scale, admitting of no exceptions.” So it is not surprising to see him playing a role in trying to spread this order to Ukraine, in tandem with the overt efforts and backroom machinations of the U.S. government. Omidyar is, openly, a firm adherent of the neo-liberal order — privitazing public assets for individual profit, converting charity and state aid to profitable enterprises for select investors, and working to elect or install governments that support these policies.
10 comments:
Probably not true. Friedman opposed the Iraq war [http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/blog/2008/06/milton-friedman-and-iraq-war.html]. Also, "distributive justice aka fairness" is gobbledygook. It is certainly possible to have a theory of distributive justice which is NOT "aka fairness" (e.g. Nozick).
So much for the liberal stream of consciousness.
So Friedman's opposing the Iraq War gets him of the hook for Pinochet? Where's the logic in that? There isn't any.
Nozick? Not exactly non-partisan, is he? Moreover, he is a philosopher, and a third rate one at that. Empirical basis, none. Normative through and through. He starts with individuals and exchanges between individuals. Markets are just and taxes are unjust. All normative assumptions that bias his argument from the get-go making it circular.
The "just deserts" nonsense is just that. Without a functioning society — relationships involving classes, power structure, institutions, government, laws, etc., there would be no deserts, and those that do well do so not exclusively on their own merits, owing exclusively to their contribution, as claimed. That's another nonsense.
No one is off the hook for anything. Friedman is an example of someone who liked neoliberal policies but did not like neocons. He did not like big government in foreign policy any more than he liked it in domestic policy. If you'd like to claim otherwise, then evidence please. And originally sources if possible, not some other random guy's "Why Friedman Was a Neocon (because I say so)".
Similarly, Nozick may not be the world's greatest philosopher, but he's hardly a bad one. I think he wiped the floor with Rawls and his so-called "justice as fairness," but that's just me. If you want to say that you were not convinced by Nozick, then fine. But I think your post is using a clear double-standard. Of course if you start with the assumption that taxes are good and necessary that you won't be convinced by someone who writes against taxes.
Oh, and can you provide some empirical evidence that without your "fair" society that there would be no deserts? Our society seems to produce a lot of stuff, and I'm sure you don't think that our society is fair.
1. Friedman was fine with the overthrow of Allende and dictatorship of Pinochet engineered by the US government operating on neoconservative principles, i.e., socialism is incompatible with democracy and US global interests. If was unaware of that, he was stupid and he was not a stupid person. He has to be assigned some responsibility, along with Hayek.
2. Nozick is not mentioned alongside Rawls, who is the towering figure in ethics in his time, for the simple reason that Nozick simply restates the Lockean position, very similar to the way that Austrian and neoclassical economists build their theory on Adam Smith's Robinson Crusoe barter exchange as the foundation. Both theories rest on 18th century imaginings about history and "human nature" that are now known to be fantasies.
The other problem with theories such as these is that they are simplifications that generalize from one causal factor among a web of factors and attendant conditions. Using such simplification as major assumptions generates a theory that is incomplete.
This is reason that Rawls is taken by his peers to have advanced the debate and Nozick not.
Of course, all are free to believe anything that suits their fancy, and people believe the silliest things — like Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society, and "there is no other way," or that humans act chiefly or exclusively as individuals, independently of culture and institutions.
But if one wishes to justify assumptions and beliefs, then they are subject to debate. However, debate ends at rigidly held assumptions and then people can only agree to disagree or conflict ensues.
> Nozick is not mentioned alongside Rawls, who is the towering figure in ethics in his time, for the simple reason that Nozick simply restates the Lockean position...
You don't think it's *possible* that Rawls is respected by progressives because his philosophy is progressive? How many philosophers do you know who are *not* egalitarian who still think that Rawls presents a better argument than Nozick? Feel free to cite examples.
Further, Nozick does not claim to present *any* complete theory (Lockean or otherwise). He even cites Rawls's own argument that incompleteness is not sufficient reason to reject a theory.
> theories such as these is that they are simplifications that generalize from one causal factor among a web of factors and attendant conditions
Nozick does argues that Crusoe examples are problematic for fairness theories *because* the causal chains can be traced clearly. His argument is when things are not muddled, the fairness argument loses it's force.
If *everything* were mixed together and no production processes could be discerned (e.g. manna from heaven), then something like the difference principle may make sense, but that's not the world we live in.
In the real world, why why do the least well-off have a claim on the most well-off, even when it's clear that the least did not contribute to production?
Rawls is left sinking in the same egalitarian foundations that he claimed to have "towered over."
In the real world, why why do the least well-off have a claim on the most well-off, even when it's clear that the least did not contribute to production?
If you believe "it's everyman for himself, then merit and "just deserts" hold by assumption.
I would agree with this only in the case of someone who lived alone without interaction or assistance from anyone else. Then it could be reasonably argued that this person is entitled to his own creations. But the issue would not arise unless someone with greater power entered the scene. Then, too bad for the weaker. It might be "unjust" but there would be no court to argue it in, or the stronger would rule the court. This was actually the situation in the case of indigenous people on a large scale on several continents.
As soon as others are added to the mix and these others stand in relationships that influence the behavior of each and all, then the situation becomes much more complex. That's why there are knotty problems and why simplistic solutions for methodological convenience are not ranked very highly in the spectrum of thought.
If you believe that "we are all in this together," then equity, right, justice, fairness and reciprocity become issues, and there is global web of consideration wrt a species and its ecology. This is sorted out by nature in the sub-human world. Humans have developed to the stage of being able to control their own destiny to a certain degree, but only cooperatively. Individually, humans are very weak versus their natural predators.
It is widely recognized among political thinkers that the liberal challenge lies in balancing individual freedom, rights, and responsibilities, with equality of persons, and common good. The way I put it is reconciling independence and interdependence based on equality of person, as it recognized by the principle that all are equal before the law — even though in practice this doesn't hold all that much owing to class and power.
If you are an economist that understands history, you have evidence that extreme inquality leads to social dysfunction and and is therefore ineffective and inefficient in maximizing utility in allocating scarce resources in a way that decreases future performance.
If you believe in natural laws in economics, then you don't believe you lying eyes and rationalize growing inequality until it engulfs you.
Columbia economics professor Edmund Phelps was a colleague of John Rawls. and he defends Rawls from Nozick in Nozick vs. Rawls on Justice, Rights and the State, along the lines of my argument above. Short read.
> If you believe "it's everyman for himself, then merit and "just deserts" hold by assumption.
Uh, what? What is "everyman for himself"? Does that mean that I can come take your stuff? How does that reflect "just deserts"?
I think you are trying to use the emotional connotations of that strawman (which we all think is unjust) to leverage emotional support for fairness.
> I would agree...
Yup.
> But the issue would not arise unless someone with greater power entered the scene. Then, too bad for the weaker.
Sorry, but this is BS. The first third of Nozick's book is about defending a minimal state, which exists solely to try and stop these attempts.
> As soon as others are added to the mix and these others stand in relationships that influence the behavior of each and all, then the situation becomes much more complex. That's why there are knotty problems and why simplistic solutions for methodological convenience are not ranked very highly in the spectrum of thought.
Hahaha! "Rank on the spectrum of thought..." BS^2. BTW, I agree that mixing raises knotty problems, but if I'm not mistaken, you haven't raised any problems that increase the power of fairness... unless of course, you assume that a mixed society should be egalitarian to begin with.
Rawls actually has an *argument*, you know. He tries to grope his way to fairness from the original position. Either he gets there or he doesn't.
I'm not sure whether we can easily figure out whether Rawls or Nozick has the "more simplistic" argument. Neither one is that complicated.
> If you believe that "we are all in this together," then equity, right, justice, fairness and reciprocity become issues.
Are we even talking about the same Theory of Justice here? Why did Rawls spend so many pages trying to get to fairness when he could have just written this blog comment?
Why did Rawls spend so many pages trying to get to fairness when he could have just written this blog comment?
Rawls is implicitly defending capitalism and also arguing in the Western liberal philosophical tradition, which I think is a weak starting point.
I personally don't like Rawls's argument, which I think is a weak attempt to restate Kant's categorical imperative, similar to the way I see Nozick as a restatement of Locke's argument. Not much new to see here, although I think that Rawls makes a better case than Nozick in that I think that the assumptions of classical liberalism about individualism are indefensible scientifically. For staters, humans are much more like pack, herd and even hive animals than lone hunters, and they are dependent on the context that they create together.
Rawls at least tries to eek out an "ought." Nozick's only rights are an assertion of the familiar life, liberty and property of Locke, which Jefferson altered to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (utility) by which he meant property. So what makes humans different from other animals is that they recognize these basic rights and, since there is regrettably some cheating they also create a legal system devoted to protecting these rights. Nozick takes this as given. (For Locke it was"natural.") Rawls at least attempts to create a rights based ethic with some rational justification.
As Phelps says in the short article I posted a link to above, Rawls was writing in response to events, much as Keynes was, too. Both can be viewed as attempts to save capitalism from itself, which if left to itself will result in the type of inequality and social dysfunction that will eventually threaten its existence. Schumpter came to a similar conclusion from another angle.
Marx got this weakness, I believe, and started from a different position, that of class and power structure, and the need for the exploited to seize power from the exploiters. That is to say, workers under both feudalism and capitalism are unfree. Neither are system that can bring the vast majority a minimum of positive freedom (freedom to) in Berlin's sense and not much negative freedom (freedom from) either, since they have to rent themselves out. Moreover, the context of their lives present little freedom for self-actualization, which is the highest type of freedom.
Practically speaking, Marx got it right, since philosophical argumentation is never going to get the rich to share wealth and power voluntarily, and so-called democracies are organized as republics to ensure that never happens, since the powerful can dominate the political process. It's ultimately a power struggle for freedom.
I take a different approach which I set forth below. But first the ethical matter.
In my view, the key ethical question is whether one apprehends the ontological unity of existence, or not. Those who experience unity, experience interconnectedness and interdependence, while those who do not, experience separateness and independence. This results in different world views and different approaches to life.
There is really no arguing world views, since these are manifestations of different forms of life that see the world differently. World view structured by different norms are incompatible in key respects. Underlying these differences are different states of consciousness, as JR Barch has been saying.
continued
continuation
On the other hand, ethical issues aside, I think that there are strong empirical reasons to organize society in ways that benefit all without needlessly restricting anyone. Roger makes such arguments from life science, for example. I think that similar arguments can be made from social and political science including economics, especially when these are considered from a systems viewpoint.
In the end, I would agree with Marx that capitalism is notsalvageable, since is built on feudalism and exhibits the same kinds of weakness, e.g., the tendency to increase capital share over labor share. It will collapse of its own weight as humanity's level of collective consciousness increases with greater awareness of unity and interdependence, and likely before that as unable to meet the needs of changing times.
Combining ethics and social science, my view of fairness and justice is that they are founded on reciprocity. For example, a foundation of economics is exchange of goods and services. The presumption is that exchange is voluntary and reciprocal. Moreover, there are social rules put in place to ensure this, first as custom and then later codified in law and enforced by governing authority. (This is Nozick's claim.) However, when exchange results in large and increasing inequality of wealth and power, indications are that the exchange is not reciprocal and probably not entirely voluntary either.
The view of the right is that this is always and everywhere attributable to the state. This was largely the classical liberal position developed at the time of the transition of feudalism to capitalism, when the bourgeoisie were in the process of wresting control from the monarchies, aristocracies and landed gentries. So the prescription has been to minimize government to protecting the right to life, liberty and property based on voluntary exchange of ownership with a proviso against aggression and cheating.
The view of the left is that this is only half right. The problem is not only hierarchical government but also the class and power structure that underlies social, political and economic institutions. Without addressing both, no solution is possible, since less government can and often does result in the wealthy gaining more power under capitalism, where the field is tilted toward capital by definition, just as it was toward land under feudalism. Without addressing class and power, minimizing government just results in a more tilted field, i.e., lack of reciprocity.
Reciprocity was not present under monarchy, feudalism, and it is not present under capitalism. Nor did the introduction of political republics lead to it.
The hypothesis of favoring land as the primary factor did not work so well for most, nor has the hypothesis of favoring capital worked out so well for most either, given the potential.
The remaining alternative is favoring the third factor, people, and seeking to balance individual independence, equality of persons, and interdependence as a species that has gained a great deal of control over its ecology. This requires reciprocity and coordination without the bias of concentrated power and privilege. That would require government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This would require a people capable of self-governance.
Post a Comment