Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 07-02-2004, 08:04 AM

agreed with onetime for the most part.

the question of whether there has to be a redistribution of wealth in the shape of social programs aimed a poverty is a political question--people who work from a more social democratic position argue that the benefits of capitalism, such as they are, should be spread across the population in the interest of greater system stability as well as for ethical reasons---the social/political/economic order is most stable when it can be seen as most just---and here is one of the flashpoint issues between positions--people are arguing about radically opposed conceptions of justice.

btw social democracy is a mixed capitalist form---it is not centrally planned, it does not fit into the conservative polarized world in which cowboy capitalism monopolizes all freedom and its opposite is stalinism.

the same general conception of the realtion of the appearance of justice to system stability explains why there are national health systems--basic health care is seen as a fundamental human right--or at least a basic right of citizens----the failure to provide it means that health care is distributed on class lines--which is indefensable if you look at it that way--so the right tries to reframe the matter.

another thing that seems to be going on through here is about what the state does to a situation when it tries to administer problems---one way of looking at it is that the state makes the arenas it moves into political--that is that it makes it possible for the public to bring organized pressure to bear on a public institution in order to make changes etc---private concerns are not amenable to this, the stakes are different.

this is usually how i see arguments for privatization---that they are aimed a depoliticizing setors that are now more public
proponents argue for privatization on other grounds--usually efficiency and for choice: the efficiency argument only functions against an assumption that the state is necessarily irrational (it is not more or less irrational than any bureacratic institution, if you think about it--it depends on feedback loops and openness in evaluating those loops, etc....)--the choice argument is simply strange to me--

to repeat an argument from above: santiago chile decided, under pressure from neoliberal ideologies, to turn control over their water supply over to a private firm---the result was not greater efficiency and lower prices as have been claimed, but much higher prices, problems of water quality, problems of consistent supply---it was a fiasco---such examples can be multiplied....

to my mind the arguments about taxation work inside these larger questions---positions about taxes usually can be mapped onto at least this grid of broader assumptions.

one more split: the right seems to work from assumptions that hierarchy is natural in all things, that unequal distribution of wealth can be understood as a function of this natural hierarchy. therefore it is not necessary to address the distribution of wealth as if it was a problem. i think this position incoherent internally and repugnant as the basis for a politics--but i really think that is how the position works. there are many ways of opposing this, but my post is already too long i suspect.

07-02-2004, 08:04 AM	#216 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	agreed with onetime for the most part. the question of whether there has to be a redistribution of wealth in the shape of social programs aimed a poverty is a political question--people who work from a more social democratic position argue that the benefits of capitalism, such as they are, should be spread across the population in the interest of greater system stability as well as for ethical reasons---the social/political/economic order is most stable when it can be seen as most just---and here is one of the flashpoint issues between positions--people are arguing about radically opposed conceptions of justice. btw social democracy is a mixed capitalist form---it is not centrally planned, it does not fit into the conservative polarized world in which cowboy capitalism monopolizes all freedom and its opposite is stalinism. the same general conception of the realtion of the appearance of justice to system stability explains why there are national health systems--basic health care is seen as a fundamental human right--or at least a basic right of citizens----the failure to provide it means that health care is distributed on class lines--which is indefensable if you look at it that way--so the right tries to reframe the matter. another thing that seems to be going on through here is about what the state does to a situation when it tries to administer problems---one way of looking at it is that the state makes the arenas it moves into political--that is that it makes it possible for the public to bring organized pressure to bear on a public institution in order to make changes etc---private concerns are not amenable to this, the stakes are different. this is usually how i see arguments for privatization---that they are aimed a depoliticizing setors that are now more public proponents argue for privatization on other grounds--usually efficiency and for choice: the efficiency argument only functions against an assumption that the state is necessarily irrational (it is not more or less irrational than any bureacratic institution, if you think about it--it depends on feedback loops and openness in evaluating those loops, etc....)--the choice argument is simply strange to me-- to repeat an argument from above: santiago chile decided, under pressure from neoliberal ideologies, to turn control over their water supply over to a private firm---the result was not greater efficiency and lower prices as have been claimed, but much higher prices, problems of water quality, problems of consistent supply---it was a fiasco---such examples can be multiplied.... to my mind the arguments about taxation work inside these larger questions---positions about taxes usually can be mapped onto at least this grid of broader assumptions. one more split: the right seems to work from assumptions that hierarchy is natural in all things, that unequal distribution of wealth can be understood as a function of this natural hierarchy. therefore it is not necessary to address the distribution of wealth as if it was a problem. i think this position incoherent internally and repugnant as the basis for a politics--but i really think that is how the position works. there are many ways of opposing this, but my post is already too long i suspect. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-02-2004 at 08:07 AM..