Distinguishing social democracy

Distinguishing social democracy:

Under left-liberal (as opposed to soc dem) regimes, organized labor does not participate in mid- to longer-range socio-economic planning. However, left think tanks can contribute mid- to long-range planning analyses.

Conversely, there are a variety of ways in which business leaders contribute to public policy formation, because business (public and private, but not cooperative) is regarded by the lib-left govt as the engine of growth.

This exclusion of cooperatives from the field of perceived contributors to growth indicates that lib-left govts may also be distinguished from social democratic govts by an assumption that growth is a product of “efficient” social-hierarchy-inflating organizational forms.

In lib-left regimes, labor views its role, and the liberal government views labor’s role as (often obstructive) ballast to economic growth initiatives that are seen as the natural concern of business. That’s labor’s negative role. It’s not a leadership role.

Labor’s positive role in capitalist democracy thus largely devolves to delivering votes to the left-liberal govt, because although the lib-left does not regard labor as a central social or economic policy resource, as opposed to conservative govts the lib-left govt will not actively try to break organized labor and it may implement those modest proposals of labor that do not impede the business-driven growth planning.

Hence, with a range of ruling (capitalist) political perspectives that always preemptively block information from labor (except what little leaks obliquely through the market), we repeatedly sink into crisis cycles–crisis of profit begets > capital deregulation and overmobilization, working class overregulation, demobilization, and dispossession beget > speculative bubbles/primitive accumulation beget > underconsumption crisis begets > further primitive accumulation, repeat. We fixate on the speculative bubbles moment in the midst of all this autistic failure, hoard wealth, and laud ourselves endlessly for being such top-notch managers and philanthropistes.

This is why for Rawlsianism to work, socialist politics and the communist horizon must be more highly valued, and even defended– by liberals.
As far as I know, this seeming impossibility has only been (temporarily) accomplished in Scandinavia and Minnesota. (While Latin America leftists tried to forge a left-lib coalition from scratch, the US destroyed this effort and enforced conservative rule in Latin America, see Greg Grandin.)

In “Right-wing Rawlsianism: A Critique” (forthcoming in Journal of Political Philosophy) Samuel Arnold argues that if liberals agree that agency is the essence of justice, then liberals have to pick which side they are on–because economic democracy fosters more agency than Trickledown provides.

Arnold’s is a clever detonation of a bridge from liberalism to conservatism, using some of the bridge-builders’ own ideal theory tools. (Particularly with respect to Rawls’ difference principle: A liberal justice-maximizing directive to choose the political-economic system that maximizes the least-advantaged group’s expectations for an index of primary goods that include income and wealth, but also status (qua capacity for agency in the workplace and self-respect in society).)

Upon deriving the optimal realization of liberal justice (agency) in workplace democracy, Arnold concludes (p. 32),

Milquetoast liberal egalitarianism is unstable: liberal egalitarianism must move far to the left in order to avoid being jerked far to the right.”

We need to keep heaping on the demonstrations that economic democracy fosters more agency than GDP/GNP tumescence.

For one example, insofar as political-economic systems can be said to have intentions, how plausible is it that capitalism does not intend to support social pathologies (Arnold, p.29)? Studies of primitive accumulation, the WEB DuBois tradition, socialist feminists, Harvey et al have a lot to say about how capitalism “intends to” (is built and maintained to) and does depend upon and support social pathologies. This approach apprehends the connection between economic (eg. workplace) tyranny and racism, sexism, colonialism, etc., for a powerpunch assertion that inequality is both fundamental to capitalism (even if it is shifted around across some social groups, over time and space) and fatally (from the perspective of justice) undermines agency (power to).

…& on the matter of historical-materialism’s putative incapacity to deal with difference (from a postmodern POV), from Arnold (p. 29):

Patriarchy, discrimination against the weak or the different, pressure to conform, and countless other social practices that prevent people from realizing their full agential potential: how long can these pathologies withstand the countervailing winds of a social democracy, with its democratic workplaces, its flattened division of labor, its robustly egalitarian public institutions?”

Advertisements

Strange Fruit: A Nice Kid Savagely, "Legally" Cut Down

Young Treyvon Martin was hunted down and murdered in cold blood because ALECNRA machine-written law, in the context of the undead slave society legal and cultural tradition within the US, identifies all black male activity (including even walking to and from a convenience store to buy a box of Skittles) as a “threat” that legally can be “met with deadly force.”

That’s right. We find that our corporate overlords (including Walmart), via their venal, despicable ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), have been going from state to state, flogging the legalization of hunting neighborhood black children (The Castle Doctrine Act/ Stand Your Ground law. Yes, it is not a coincidence that the legislation titles sound like they were written by a penis. The Little King strategy). Corrupt policy for an apartheid military society.

Look, this is clearly a case where liberals should be in there, taking on the conservative corporate warlords. The ALEC / NRA legislation is nothing more than Klan policy in a Jim Crow country.

“You live in a country where your son can get A’s and B’s in high school, be well liked by his teachers, never get in trouble with the law, and run out to buy a snack during the NBA All Star Game, and never come home…because someone decides he has the right to execute your son…That’s the country you live in, if you are black in America” Lawrence O’Donnell.

The rotten-hearted US, devoid of the union strength required to set a brake on and break a corporate-feudal law that elaborates itself as a greasy film of excuses for abominations against humanity.


Likewise, ‎”Florence, an African-American, was driving with his pregnant wife and four-year-old son in March 2005 when he was pulled over by a New Jersey state trooper. He was arrested on a bench warrant for an unpaid fine. The warrant had been cancelled two years earlier after the fine was paid, but it had never been removed from the police data system. Florence was taken away in handcuffs and spent the next six days at the Burlington County Detention Center, where he was ordered to undress, sprayed with a delousing agent and inspected for contraband and gang tattoos. He spent an additional day at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, where he was stripped and ordered to squat and cough, a maneuver designed to eject anything hidden in the rectum. Brought before a magistrate, he was released without charge.” 
The anti-democratic Supreme Court says, “no problem”.

The militarized NYC police “elite gun unit” has been outed for systematically treating black people, and black people alone “like animals,” as policy. 

“They didn’t care if it was kids in there, they didn’t care if it was women in there, naked women,” the detective said. “. . . They treated them as if they had no rights whatsoever. It was disgusting.” 

“What white American majorities have been collectively attempting to redeem for the past 40 years, is a White Man’s Country. That’s why they have voted Republican in presidential elections since 1968, with Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy. That’s why, in the wake of the Black Freedom Movement of the Sixties, white electorates in every state put in office politicians that methodically constructed an overwhelmingly non-white Prison Gulag that now warehouses 1 out of every 4 incarcerated persons on the planet, half of them African American. That’s the essential truth of Michelle Alexander’s New Jim Crow, under which Blacks are criminalized as a people in order to return them to the status of a subjugated class. 

The Stand Your Ground-like laws that have been enacted by more than two-dozen states are very public manifestations of unreconstructed white nationalism on the offensive.”


I don’t look at the Right wing blogotwitterosphere. That’s a pastime for others, and not my schtick. But I am somewhat interested in how the Right cannot effectively spin the spate of state terror unleashed on innocent black people these days. I did happen to stumble upon one conservative comment thread trying desperately to damage-control spin the topic of Martin’s murder. The political tack that the conservative tweeter was trying to flog was this: “The Left (which hesheit calls “neoliberals”–either for obfuscation purposes if hesheit is a paid conservative dittohead, or because hesheit is honestly politically clueless) has politicized the Martin murder. Good people will simply see Martin’s murder as an inexplicable act of God, not think, and just sadly FEEL the unaccountable tragedy, and then quietly walk away, nothing to see here folks, get back to your workstations.” 
So you, Little Lord Faunteleroy, declare it’s exploitative, it’s impossible, it’s wrong to both feel and think. To start, I gotta alert you, junior. The Right, though they believe they are the only humans, actually do not have a monopoly on feeling bad at the death of boys. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence, historical and contemporary, that conservatives’ feelings are shockingly absent at the death of black boys; and the Left, the thinking, political Left, is decidedly more human, more feeling in this regard. 
Not only that surprising fact, but also: Someone let the politicization out of the bag a loooong time ago, Twinkles: Hence the NRA, ALEC, their Castle/Stand Your Ground political campaign to militarize American civil society, as well as the similarly elite, antidemocratic use of constitutional law to allow wealth to dominate politics and to give free reign to state terror. That’s all political, Virginia. And it’s politics that results in political corruption, economic pillaging, brutality, state terror…and murder. Are you still telling us to stop feeling and thinking together? I’ve got to wonder what’s wrong with you.
This conservative schtick did not seem to be getting much traction (not much of a conservative yes-men choral response) on-line, leading me again to believe that this tweeter is an unpaid conservative tool. (Or conservatives are just completely busted on selling their brutal polity achievements these days.) [UPDATE: No. This nothing-to-see-here/back-to-your-workstations conservative gambit was reproduced for a mass audience…by The Daily Show (Larry Wilmore & Jon Stewart), in April 2012. It should be noted that The Daily Show positions itself as a “fair & balanced” liberal political commentator. See here and here for analyses of conservative liberalism.]

I do have one thing to say to unpaid conservative internet trolls:

If you are attempting to flog conservative dogma, and you don’t get a piece of Koch’s prodigious black gold accumulated and reserved precisely for such a commercial service (as protected by the antidemocratic SCOTUS), then you need to examine your life, son. There’s a term for someone who does unpaid work for a wealthy, freeloading tyrant who could easily pay for the labor…No wait. A slave wants freedom, but is brutally constrained. Something (self-)objectified, that is dedicated to be used by a boss, that aspires neither to commodification nor freedom, well now that is specifically a tool. A tool, son. We all know what the Limbaughs, Malkins, and Palins are doing: Paying for the estates, the nannies, the Manolo Blahniks, the Mercedes-Benz SUVs, and the Viagra stash, working for a massive, high-rent industry. The question is: What are you doing, Littlest Hobo King? I’ll tell you what. Since you come so cheap, I need a squire. I’ll pay you  a little above your going rate: a strand of licorice and a gumdrop for your lifelong service. …Or maybe you should consider opening up some books, going to some new places, making some new friends, listening to some different voices, do some reflecting about which side of history you do the free work for. …And for the record, you can keep feeling as well as reflect. It’s a little razzle-dazzle we Leftists like to call being human.

And, conservative pros, good luck with your Right-wing pro-feudal state terror spin. All your dogmatic court and legislative coups spew brutality and crisis. You don’t know how to rule worth a damn.

Researcher Fournier likewise finds a pattern of institutionalized racism in Anglo-American (Canadian) courts (forthcoming, Canadian Criminal Law Review 2012). The courts are lenient on men who kill their families in a fit of “passion”, iff the men are white.

US Police State

“The federal government has appropriated about $635 billion, accounting for inflation, for homeland security-related activities and equipment since the 9/11 attacks. To conclude, though, that “the police” have become increasingly militarized casts too narrow a net. The truth is that virtually the entire apparatus of government has been mobilized and militarized right down to the university campus.” –Stephan Salisbury, “How to fund an American police state.”

We Have Never Been Modern

This Robin post reviews Karen Orren’s scholarship into the persistence of feudal law in the US workplace. Right, where people spend almost all of their waking time, when not unemployed.

Orren, Karen. 1991. Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law and Liberal Development in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521422543.

Orren’s “”Belated Feudalism” set off multiple explosions when it appeared in 1991, inflicting serious damage on the received wisdom of Harvard political scientist Louis Hartz. In his 1955 classic ”The Liberal Tradition in America,” still taught on many college campuses, Hartz argued that the United States was born free: Americans never knew feudalism; their country – with its Horatio Alger ethos of individual mobility, private property, free labor, and the sacred rights of contract – was modern and liberal from the start. For decades, liberals embraced Hartz’s argument as an explanation for why there was no – and could never be any – radicalism in the United States. Leftists, for their part, also accepted his account, pointing to the labor movement’s failure to create socialism as evidence of liberalism’s hegemony.

 But as Orren shows, American liberalism has never been the easy inheritance that Hartz and his complacent defenders assume. And the American labor movement may have achieved something far more difficult and profound than its leftist critics realize. Trade unions, Orren argues, made America liberal, laying slow but steady siege to an impregnable feudal fortress, prying open this ”state within a state” to collective bargaining and congressional review.

By pioneering tactics later used by the civil rights movement – sit-ins, strikes, and civil disobedience – labor unions invented the modern idea of collective action, turning every sphere of society into a legitimate arena of democratic politics.”

While the US had slavery and identifiable feudal lords in the South, it maintained feudal workplaces throughout, and up through the entirety of the 20th century. Along with the continuing influence of anti-revolutionary British culture (P. Anderson), instilled via the Anglo American elite class (W. Domhoff), no wonder Southern feudal conservatism (D. Blackmon) was resonant and spread throughout the US even after the Democratic Party was modernized in the mid 20th century.

I had been aware that the contemporary torture and domestic and international repression privileges of the US Executive office were based in ancient and barbaric Anglo feudal law, but now I recognize that, considering British feudal warlords became the capitalist class, the idea flogged, that there was a legal or institutional break with feudalism in the Anglosphere, has been vastly overmarketed.

The last thing we have needed is a break from the fledgling Enlightenment movement, which set up the US as a semi-independent state locked into global economic elite rule, but would have been thereupon abandoned per the Federalist and slaver preferences, save for the unions. American unions were not radical because they were busy trying to push the US from slavery and feudal law and institutions into basic liberal law and institutions.

…Now, that argument is not going to get you very far, if viewed without historical depth. Societies and their institutions obviously don’t have to try to mince their way through lukewarm liberalism. Sweden, for one, developed much more radical and effective unions starting from feudalism. Then there’s Russia, the Latin American countries, etc. However, given the fact that the US was advertising itself as a modern, liberal bastion–to immigrants, to foreign allies–the early 20th century unions found political opportunity in pushing for actual liberal laws and policies within the US.

Here the thesis I will again advance is that liberal institutions as your “Left” do not create a sufficient or robust counter to conservatism–Liberalism is incapable of moving a society into even merely political democracy, let alone democracy and freedom egalitarianism.

And with the destruction of the unions and labor rights, the US has slid back down the muddy liberal bank and sunk back into the dank, suffocating morass of conservatism: Freedom for a few; slavery for most.

Here in “Birth Control McCarthyism” (referencing his book “Fear: The History of Political Idea,”) Robin explains why feminists and labor have a lot of ground in common, faced with conservatives. Insofar as we lose sight of the necessity of the feminist-labor coalition, it is because we have come to have a scandalous blindspot for the horrible, deranged, rabid elephant in the Western livingroom, the ubiquitous, pervasive, legal fact of our (especially Anglosphere) societies: the totalitarian workplace.

Garrison America

Bowles’ and Jayadev’s “Garrison America.”


Ever wonder why Americans can’t say no? 


Here’s your answer: 1 in 4 Americans participating in the “United States economy is now engaged in guard labor–providing security for people and property, and imposing work discipline.” And that doesn’t even count hegemonic policing.


On the Ultra Rich’s Surveillance State.


Remember right after Katrina, when we were told over and over, by people brimming with righteousness, how black people were running amok in New Orleans like fast zombies? (Like how white parents who murder their children claim a black man did it.) Meanwhile, our right-wing militarized police heroes are actually running around gunning people down, raping and pillaging. Then the political-economic elites turned New Orleans into a neoliberal fortress. It never fucking gets old for us, does it.

Out with FPTP

The recent Canadian election argues for Britain’s upcoming vote to replace the marginally-democratic First-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. This long-overdue change would require protest and disruption as well as within-establishment work.

FPTP defenders argue that the old FPTP British electoral system “tends to produce a two-party system (see Duverger’s Law), which in turn tends to produce single-party governments, which don’t have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation.” In our era, this is a disadvantage for everyone other than the conservative party faithful, as the next purported “advantage”, “FPTP encourages ‘broad-church’ centrist policies,” is not a law but is rather contingent upon class mobilization. Given the context of a capitalist playing field, FPTP only encouraged centrist policies in the mid-20th century era of strong working class mobilization (backed by a credible communist alternative threat)–a structural-political compromise. Strong capitalist class mobilization and weak working class mobilization on that same capitalist playing field is a double-whammy that results in increasingly more right wing governance, in which case FPTP produces extremism, rather than centrism. We can see this very clearly in contemporary Anglo-American electoral politics and governance.

An additional factor is also actually rather key in the evolution of electoral politics, esp. in the US: “FPTP forces parties to become coalitions in themselves, rather than forming coalitions with other parties later.” In effect, since parties are coalitions anyway, FPTP forces excessive amalgamation. This debilitates left-liberal coalitions particularly, as they contain an irreconcilable class-rift disadvantage that modern right-wing coalitions do not. Thus lib-left coalitions are less chronically illegible, frustrating, and alienating to voters and more effective when they are not forced to internalize their more fundamental contradictions within one party, but rather negotiate a coalition in government.