I recently took the political compass test again and once again came out strongly on both the left and libertarian ends of the scale - close to where they place Noam Chomsky.
PC use a double axis: left-right with an entirely state planned economy on the left and an entirely free-market economy with no government regulation on the right. Their other access is authoritarian-libertarian. The extreme libertarian end any collectivism is voluntary and there is no state. The other end is where the state controls everything. They mark the four corners with exemplars: Stalin in the top left (authoritarian communism), Pinochet in the top right (authoritarian free-market), Anarchists in the bottom left (libertarian socialism), and Milton Friedman on the bottom right
But I have no interest in a command economy and nor, I suspect, does Chomsky. Neither of us is under an illusion about the disasters of Stalinism or Maoism. What Chomsky and I favour is the state taking a role in preventing psychopathic corporations (and government departments) from killing people, enslaving them, oppressing them in any way; or polluting air, water, or land, and from causing irreparable harm to the environment. To me this is the minimum needed for long term survival. I don't shit where I eat. I don't see the state telling corporations what to produce or how much. I'm not particularly in favour of protectionism or trade barriers. I think free trade encourages peace. I don't think the free movement of capital is quite so benign.
On the other hand I prefer that same state leave people to live their private lives pretty much as they like. While some social rules are best encoded as laws and policed (prohibitions on murder, assault, rape, and so on) other decisions are best left to adults (who I love, marry, etc, how I spend my leisure time). I think we have many laws to prevent us winning Darwin Awards although all too often stupid people take others with them.
I would say that I favour regulated Capitalism that retained rewards and incentives for innovation and entrepreneurial activities. Where Capitalism is used in the generic sense of people investing their surplus wealth in projects that create jobs. Just that any progress cannot come at a cost to workers lives, health, or well being.
Of course we have some very serious problems right now. We have to think about the possibility that runaway climate change might disrupt our ability to feed ourselves and thus tear apart the fabric of society. Even if we manage to avoid the worst case scenario (though we're not doing nearly enough for that) then we still have problems. The idea of constant economic growth is predicated on some false assumptions. However, I still think we need Capitalism (i.e. the investment of surplus wealth) to get us out of the mess we're in. And if the worst does happen then none of this will matter and no one will read it in 20 years time anyway.
What I want to try to deal with it how terms like liberal, progressive, or conservative fit into this scheme. What about nationalist or populist?
Around the time I retook the Political Compass test, I was drawn into the silly argument about Hitler being a "socialist". Other people countered by saying he was obviously right-wing. Political compass make Hitler a centrist in economic terms. He was big on privatisation but also the Nazi state was huge, especially the military, and controlling. Hitler was not an extremist on the left-right axis. He was an extreme authoritarian. He's a 10 on that axis. Indeed what he called "socialism" was in fact the idea that all Germans should think only of the needs of, and sacrifice everything for, the German state. One of the great models for Fascism was the Romantic philosophy of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) who said "the individual does not exist...the group alone exists". The Nazi's were socialist the way that North Korea are democratic. But they weren't as right wing as most people seem to think. Far less so than most modern Prime Ministers of the UK or Presidents of the USA (including most Democrats).
One thing to say to Americans is that all your mainstream politicians are on the economic right. To call anyone who has been in power there a communist is just laughable. Even someone AOC with her Green New Deal is barely even a socialist from where I sit on the political spectrum. The Green New Deal is Capitalism which does fuck the people or planet. We've just forgotten that Capitalism doesn't need to be the kind of scorched-earth approach of Neoliberalism.
I got to thinking about all these labels and this is what I came up with.
Liberalism: economic vs social
Under the economic liberalism, liberals seek to enslave workers; under the social liberalism, to emancipate them.It's a question of who is free to do what. Orwellian doublespeak has only confused the situation.
Economic liberalism is all about freeing Capitalists to make a profit with no regulation or oversight. It resists protection for workers in terms of wages and conditions. It sees labour as an overhead. It is linked to the rhetoric of "free enterprise" in which everyone is technically free to participate in the marketplace. In reality there is no level playing field. Some people inherit huge wealth while others inherit none. Some are members of social classes that give each other a helping hand into power: the classic case of boys who go to Eton and Oxford, through an unpaid internship in Parliament, to a safe parliamentary seat, to the cabinet, and then high office. They may be talented but they get pushed to the front of the queue because they are part of the incrowd. The vast majority of talented people are shut out because they are not connected. Another term for economic liberalism is mercantilism.
In practice economic liberalism leads to the oppression of workers and at worse to their enslavement. For example since Tories took power the security of work has declined through zero hours contracts and the gig economy, while in-work poverty has grown year on year. In doublespeak this is trumpeted as record low levels of unemployment.
Social liberalism is virtually unrelated to economic liberalism. Social liberalism is focussed on freeing citizens from oppressive regulation by the state and is thus related to libertarianism. A good example if the liberalisation of laws against homosexuality leading up to the institution of marriage being opened to same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage was achieved under the same government in the UK that squeezed workers and made swinging cuts to welfare and health (both presented in double-speak as record levels of investment in welfare and health).
In terms of the Political Compass diagram economic liberalism is on the right-hand edge, while social liberalism is at the bottom. They are orthogonal to each other. That's why the discussion about liberalism is so confusing.
Progressive vs Conservative
Liberalism is sometimes confused with being progressive. In fact the axis of progressivism and conservatism seems to me to be completely separate.
Progressives want to pursue change, while conservatives are comfortable with the status quo. Although we often associate these poles with economic left/right distinctions this is deceptive.
For example, the old guard soviet communists were social and economic conservatives resisting change while Gorbachev was a social and economic progressive who instituted change. None of them were particularly socially or economically liberal. The change was a further step away from the Totalitarianism of Stalin's era towards more personal freedom. However, it was also a march towards the right as markets opened up. And of course this process was ultimately corrupted so that most of the state assets ended up in the hands of a cabal of oligarchs who run mafia-like entities with help from the ex-KGB President.
On the other hand right-wing politicians do often pursue change. Thatcher and Reagan for example were socially conservative, but both were radically progressive economically. The two leaders instituted wide ranging transformation of their respective economies.
Of course there were social in both cases there were consequent social changes, but they were not part of a deliberate policy in most cases. Indeed one of the flagship policies of social conservatism in the USA was mandatory minimum sentences and three strike rules which saw the prison population triple in the space of a couple of decades. The USA now imprisons a higher proportion of its citizens than any other developed nation. Mostly for minor non-violent drug offences. But once a convict always a ex-con and many doors are closed to them.
Contrary to the popular narrative much of the left-wing is socially conservative and want to, for example, preserve and strengthen protections for workers. And much of the right-wing are currently progressive in seeking small government and further privatisation. It is many decades since the Conservative Party of the UK (aka the Tories) was aptly named. Every time they get into power they usher in sweeping changes. The radical element of the Tories have driven the UK's exit from the EU.
Markets
As I said, Political Compass, put me way over on the left. This implies that I would be in favour of massive state intervention, but this is deceptive. It doesn't capture the nuances of my politics.
This morning someone called Diane Abbott (Labour MP) a "Stalinist" on the news. Apart from the fact that this kind of smeer is just a cheap political stunt what's notable about this is that she has the largest parliamentary majority in the house. She is incredibly popular in her own constituency which has a high proportion of "black" families, partly because she is herself "black" (I remain deeply uncomfortable with the whole black/white language of ethnicity but it is what is current here in the UK). Ms Abbott is a lightning rod for racism and sexism - she gets more online abuse than all the other women in parliament put together. She was called a "Stalinist" because she did not publicly denounce Julian Assange. But publicly denouncing political prisoners in lieu of a criminal trial is exactly what happened in Stalin's Russia, so this is the pot calling the kettle black (no racial reference intended here).
The tired old cliche is that we have just two choices: extreme free market economics which turns people into Soylent Green, or Stalinism. That is the far top-left and the far bottom-right of the Political Compass grid. Except that our UK and US governments for decades occupied the top-right, i.e. authoritarian right-wing, quadrant. Which is not one of the choices in the false dichotomy.
Stalin and Mao ran command economies which were centrally controlled and often disastrous as a result of poor information and communication. At worst both leaders caused huge famines which killed millions. On the other hand Pinochet ran Chile as an extreme free market experiment and killed anyone that got in the way.
But not all left-wing people favour a command economy. I don't for example. Indeed most nominally socialist countries (prior to the virus of Neoliberalism) have never employed command economies. They limited the damage that any company could do but largely let them get on with it.
The Scandinavians for example have never taken the Stalinist approach. What they did was centralise public services such as the provision of infrastructure, health, and education and provide a very high standard across the board. The cost of this was high taxation. This produced the highest overall standards of living in the world and provided a genuinely level social playing field. By any measure the Scandinavian countries were prosperous and well. Their industries were vigorous and successful. Brands like Volvo, Ikea, and Absolute are famous the world over for good reasons.
There are plenty of other options. Had we adopted some of them in place of Neoliberalism in the 1970s we might not be facing the end of civilisation right now. Deregulation of business along with the failure of oversight and internal and external governance is one of the main reasons we now face runaway climate change. Neoliberalism has fucked us.
Neoliberalism
This reflection was partly sparked by a comment after I tweeted the slogan: "Under the economic liberalism, liberals seek to enslave workers; under the social liberalism, to emancipate them." Neoliberalism is literally the new liberalism. But it has always struck me as completely illiberal. This is because Neoliberalism is a form of economic liberalism, not a form of social liberalism.
Neoliberalism started out as a form of progressive economic liberalism. It emerged as a violent reaction to social liberalism, especially in the USA, on the part of socially conservative businessmen (as outlined in the Lewis Powell Memo). Now it is the status quo so arguments in favour of it come from conservatives.
Interestingly the Republicans managed to co-opt socially conservative fundamentalist Christians to their economically liberal program in the 1980s. This despite the fact that most fundamentalists are poor working people who have done poorly Neoliberalis. President Trump continues to pander to this constituency through his policies toward Israel, though as I say I believe he has taken a leap to the left with his trade wars and protectionism.
Neoliberalism is able to simulate social liberalism in the form of choices. Choice of suppliers not only stimulates competition (survival of the fittest) but it also creates the illusion of freedom. People in prison are given the choice of 100 TV channels and convinced that this represents real freedom despite being behind bars. Such choices are merely ersatz freedom.
Also notable Neoliberalism has seen the emancipation of homosexuals. While the is lingering ill-will for homosexuals in some sections of society (misnamed "homophobia") they cannot be legally discriminated against, they can hold high public office, and of high symbolic value they can marry. This more genuinely socially liberal. But it cost the Neoliberals nothing in terms of their economics. It wasn't a quid pro quo.
Some Neoliberals make a big deal about the reduction in world poverty. As far as I can see this program of uplift is not motivated by compassion. It is motivated by the desire to create new consumers. it is only by raising poor people up that they can begin to participate in consumerism. If you go to India what you see is poor people drowning in cheap plastic shit. Any gains in prosperity are offset by choking air pollution, the illness from lack of clean water and sewerage, and the lasting poverty that followed colonisation by the British. Ironically, though they are hated more, the Muslim Mughals were often better overlords than the British East India Company.
Make no mistake the introduction of Neoliberalism was a deliberate revolution. It was backed by intellectuals, funded by business men, and enacted by politicians. I'm not a Feminist, but we can say that this was the last throw of the dice for the patriarchy because Neoliberalism was as much as anything about stupid fucking white men clinging to power.
Unfortunately it looks like the end of Neoliberalism will probably coincide with the end of civilisation. There's a good chance that we are past the point of no return and that climate change is now going to snow ball. Although it will mostly involve melting of snow and ice. The ability of a few rich men to manipulate the world has existed in many empires. The current empires are modeled on the East India Company - one does not send and army to conquer another country, one sends lawyers, salesmen, public-relations people, and above all financiers. But introducing Africa to debt, for example, financiers took control of the entire continent. In the 1980s the entire continent when bankrupt. This was repeated in South America, in South East Asia, in Japan, and finally in 2008 in Europe and America.
And still we have not realised that we have been conquered by a foreign power. Just because Goldman-Sachs et al don't have a national flag we should not be fooled into thinking that they are not a vicious and rapacious imperial power.
Together such powers are killing us all. The rich hope to survive the collapse of civilisation in closed communities. But can you imagine a new civilisation made up entirely of psychopaths who destroyed the world for more wealth than they could spend in 100 lifetimes? What happens to a social species when the only members left lack the capacity for empathy?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep is seemly & on-topic. Thanks.