Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 11-19-2007, 06:58 AM

well, there are a bunch of questions here, yes?
one way of thinking about them, at least at the level of how they tie together, is by way of neoliberalism.

on taxes/social security:

folk like ustwo and other libertarian-types (regardless of how they position themselves politically) seem to confuse the fact that they do not personally like taxes (who does?) with an understanding of how programs that redistribute wealth function to maintain the social system that--like it or not--capitalism REQUIRES be maintained in order to function at all. rather than think in structural terms, in historical terms, in sociological terms, the libertarian set seems to prefer thinking about capitalism like the weather, as a natural phenomenon, and taxes as an affliction that punishes them (boo hoo)--what holds this together is some strange assumption that capitalism naturally produces desirable social outcomes. that this assumption flies in the face of the history of actually existing capitalism seems unimportant. that there is a continual tension between the way in which capitalist relations pulverize social solidarity and the requirement that this solidarity be maintained is irrelevant to these folks.

but maintaining solidarity is maintaining political consent. and no socio-economic system can operate without political consent. that the redistribution of wealth is about, functionally, buying political consent can be taken as given: so the question is basically which way of buying political consent produces the greater social good. on this, i cant see any argument against redistribution of wealth that makes any sense.

one of the baseline claims that separated the traditional left from the traditional right is that the left tended to see capitalism in system terms and the right tended to refuse that, preferring instead to traffic in notions of petit bourgeois "common sense" which enframes the world around the viewpoint of individual experience---confusing "i dont like taxes" with anything like a system-level understanding of what the redistribution of wealth *does* is only understandable by way of this hinge...the irony is that conservatives with political power tend not to see things in the way the rank-and-file poujadiste-types do.

anyway, programs like social security serve system legitimation functions: they help provide the illusion that a capitalist-based system actually cares for (not in the subjective sense, but in the material one) the labor pool once elements within that pool age. a coherent health insurance policy (one that does not resemble the american) provides the illusion of a beneficent state (that it also provides for a coherent reproduction of the labor pool tends to get shoved to the side)...these help buy political consent.

because the libertarian set collapses capitalism into a natural phenomenon, it is easy for these folk to imagine that political consent is secondary at best. that another aspect of libertarian=style "thinking" is the conflating of structural effects (class position) with individual morality (via some bizarre-o reworking of calvinism, such that one's economic status reflects one's moral state reflects one's status as "chosen"--so that one can endorse class stratification as somehow just while avoiding thinking in terms of class at the same time) simply reinforces the evasion of systematic thinking. one result is that the libertarian set cannot even provide a coherent description of contemporary capitalism, much less a coherent set of policies regarding its regulation (and redistribution of wealth is a form of social regulation)....

tarrifs are another matter....here again you start with a gap separating political claims and the empirical world. in neoliberal political terms, reducing tarrifs are about "free trade" and "opening up markets to progress"--but in the actual world, things are not like that.

example: think about north-south relations in the context of globalization (say)----the demand that a country which finds itself locked into "structural adjustment" reduce or eliminate tarrifs is mostly about enabling northern hemisphere countries--the united states in particular--to dump overproduction (particularly in agriculture related to corn and dairy)...
so the claims that "freeing" trade engenders progress (whatever that is) runs into the fact that in agricultural production (for example) "free trade" in the context of basic assymetries leads in fact to increased and deepened dependency on food imports. this because "progress" neoliberal style entails the destruction of locally oriented agricultural production. there is a direct linkage between this and the effects of eliminating other mechanisms that resdistribute wealth in the name of noeliberal ideology, but outlining them would make this even longer (i can do it, anyone who looks can do it)..so if the actual idea of "free trade" is using southern hemisphere countries to absorb irrationalities in production from northern hemisphere countries, then fine, that's the system, that's what it does--but let's not pretend that this has anything to do with "progress" with "facing the future" with "competition"--this has ONLY to do with northern hemisphere countries exporting the consequences of dysfunctional subsidy systems, irrational agricultural policies, etc.

in the film "life and debt" michael manley makes a nice quick point:

if you want to know to whose advantage the current globalizing capitalist order functions, think about who set it up. that the institutional configuration behind "globalization" follows from bretton woods, and that at bretton woods there were NO southern hemisphere countries because in 1944 there was no "third world" but only elements of northern empires, then follows--quick and easy--the answer to "qui bono?"

the rhetoric of "free trade" isnt worth the breath required to repeat it.

11-19-2007, 06:58 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, there are a bunch of questions here, yes? one way of thinking about them, at least at the level of how they tie together, is by way of neoliberalism. on taxes/social security: folk like ustwo and other libertarian-types (regardless of how they position themselves politically) seem to confuse the fact that they do not personally like taxes (who does?) with an understanding of how programs that redistribute wealth function to maintain the social system that--like it or not--capitalism REQUIRES be maintained in order to function at all. rather than think in structural terms, in historical terms, in sociological terms, the libertarian set seems to prefer thinking about capitalism like the weather, as a natural phenomenon, and taxes as an affliction that punishes them (boo hoo)--what holds this together is some strange assumption that capitalism naturally produces desirable social outcomes. that this assumption flies in the face of the history of actually existing capitalism seems unimportant. that there is a continual tension between the way in which capitalist relations pulverize social solidarity and the requirement that this solidarity be maintained is irrelevant to these folks. but maintaining solidarity is maintaining political consent. and no socio-economic system can operate without political consent. that the redistribution of wealth is about, functionally, buying political consent can be taken as given: so the question is basically which way of buying political consent produces the greater social good. on this, i cant see any argument against redistribution of wealth that makes any sense. one of the baseline claims that separated the traditional left from the traditional right is that the left tended to see capitalism in system terms and the right tended to refuse that, preferring instead to traffic in notions of petit bourgeois "common sense" which enframes the world around the viewpoint of individual experience---confusing "i dont like taxes" with anything like a system-level understanding of what the redistribution of wealth does is only understandable by way of this hinge...the irony is that conservatives with political power tend not to see things in the way the rank-and-file poujadiste-types do. anyway, programs like social security serve system legitimation functions: they help provide the illusion that a capitalist-based system actually cares for (not in the subjective sense, but in the material one) the labor pool once elements within that pool age. a coherent health insurance policy (one that does not resemble the american) provides the illusion of a beneficent state (that it also provides for a coherent reproduction of the labor pool tends to get shoved to the side)...these help buy political consent. because the libertarian set collapses capitalism into a natural phenomenon, it is easy for these folk to imagine that political consent is secondary at best. that another aspect of libertarian=style "thinking" is the conflating of structural effects (class position) with individual morality (via some bizarre-o reworking of calvinism, such that one's economic status reflects one's moral state reflects one's status as "chosen"--so that one can endorse class stratification as somehow just while avoiding thinking in terms of class at the same time) simply reinforces the evasion of systematic thinking. one result is that the libertarian set cannot even provide a coherent description of contemporary capitalism, much less a coherent set of policies regarding its regulation (and redistribution of wealth is a form of social regulation).... tarrifs are another matter....here again you start with a gap separating political claims and the empirical world. in neoliberal political terms, reducing tarrifs are about "free trade" and "opening up markets to progress"--but in the actual world, things are not like that. example: think about north-south relations in the context of globalization (say)----the demand that a country which finds itself locked into "structural adjustment" reduce or eliminate tarrifs is mostly about enabling northern hemisphere countries--the united states in particular--to dump overproduction (particularly in agriculture related to corn and dairy)... so the claims that "freeing" trade engenders progress (whatever that is) runs into the fact that in agricultural production (for example) "free trade" in the context of basic assymetries leads in fact to increased and deepened dependency on food imports. this because "progress" neoliberal style entails the destruction of locally oriented agricultural production. there is a direct linkage between this and the effects of eliminating other mechanisms that resdistribute wealth in the name of noeliberal ideology, but outlining them would make this even longer (i can do it, anyone who looks can do it)..so if the actual idea of "free trade" is using southern hemisphere countries to absorb irrationalities in production from northern hemisphere countries, then fine, that's the system, that's what it does--but let's not pretend that this has anything to do with "progress" with "facing the future" with "competition"--this has ONLY to do with northern hemisphere countries exporting the consequences of dysfunctional subsidy systems, irrational agricultural policies, etc. in the film "life and debt" michael manley makes a nice quick point: if you want to know to whose advantage the current globalizing capitalist order functions, think about who set it up. that the institutional configuration behind "globalization" follows from bretton woods, and that at bretton woods there were NO southern hemisphere countries because in 1944 there was no "third world" but only elements of northern empires, then follows--quick and easy--the answer to "qui bono?" the rhetoric of "free trade" isnt worth the breath required to repeat it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 11-19-2007 at 07:00 AM..