http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/14/libertarians-and-occupy-wall-street/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/14/wall-street-couldnt-have-done-it-alone/
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Some interesting food for thought
Here are a couple of articles at counterpunch. Call me one of the libertarians who, as Carson says, "gets mad when they see libertarians defending" "big business" against the onslaughts of the "Dirty Effing Hippies." (Quotes rearranged by me for functional purposes.) The second article is from Sheldon Richman, editor of the Freeman. He sympathizes with the protestors and can somewhat be identified with the wing of libertarianism Carson comes from (they run in the same circles) but his article is a little more of a plumb line libertarian analysis. More commentary to come but for now its late and I am going to bed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like Carson. I see pretty eye to eye with him and I think he "gets it."
ReplyDeleteBut I am still not sold on the subtext of Richman's position - nor the general position of most so-called 'libertarians' who tend to focus on the government and less on the owners of capital.
As a preface, the world is certainly quite complicated, and relations between massive institutions can in no way be boiled down to simple relations of power as one might find within a single corporation. But that aside, I think the relationship between the corporate-financial complex and the state is something more like the relationship of a board of directors and middle or upper middle management of a company. If you refuse to do the bidding of the board, you are replaced, but if you play ball, you get the perks. Note, for example, how Congressional stock portfolios have always performed at statistically improbable levels, and of course, the on-going revolving door from the public sector into lavishly paid private work.
Now one might make the argument that generally speaking, middle-management and upper middle management could be more efficiently replaced by decision-making or enforcement boards closer to worker control. One could also argue that middle-managers can be useful as long as they are held accountable to the right people. The same things can be said of the state.
I am no fan of certain functions of the state, but there are ways in which it can be useful if external pressures to the state can keep them accountable. The same cannot be said of corporations, who operate with a certain level of insulation and protection, understood as "private property."
Certainly that doesn't mean the state should be immune from criticism, because people in it - bureaucrats without accountability to the voters - push the agenda of the ruling class at every turn (in the Federal Reserve, in the Pentagon, in the Intelligence Agencies), but those are not necessary functions of government as constituted. A long term goal of abolishing or severely reducing the state is fantastic and admirable, but it cannot be, in my view, properly done without first dismantling the corporate institutions that serve as the primary vehicle for the accumulation of capital.
Your last paragraph shows your appreciation of Chomsky, which of course is good, but its interesting in this context because in one conversation we had I mentioned that many radical anarchist/libertarian types view Chomsky as the "court radical," so to say. Meaning that he is as radical as mainstream or even progressive media outlets will make relevant. For these types, many of whom admire Chomsky, Chomsky's advocating that the state be used to destroy corporate power somehow somehow compromises his radicalism. This is a non-issue for me, but what is interesting is that in their criticisms they talk around what you called the "board of directors" and "upper middle management" relationship that exists between the state and big business. I would say that there are 3 different ways of looking at this arrangement from a libertarian perspective. Two are state centric, and one is what I think is the most realistic.
ReplyDelete1) The straightforward state centric view-This is the most commonly held view amongst libertarians. All of the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism are anti-statists, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the state gets blamed for meddling in the market while the market rarely gets blamed for meddling in the state. These are the ones who sound the most like your typical right-winger. The state gets in the way of private business and does not allow it to function efficiently. Corporations are not really oppressive because they provide jobs, and higher living standards (as if this is the soul measurement of happiness) to many people and would be doing it better if the state just got out of the way. These types do believe that the government insulates corporations from competition, but they also believe that these people are such geniuses that they would be rich even without government protection. They believe lots of people would be rich if the government would just get out of the way. I think this position is ludicrous.
2) The second state centric view is what I would call the state as final authority view. While it sounds similar to the first it is different in nuanced ways. Those who hold this pov would argue that a partnership between big business and the state exists, but that the state is the authority in the relationship because it is the functional organization that holds police power over a given territory. Moreover, it makes and enforces the laws. Therefore any partnership or relationship it has with business is on its own terms. Given this, any criticism of corporatism or neoliberalism must place the state in the position of top authority, and therefore enabler. I think these guys get the gist of what is going on, but don't adequately consider the fact that large corporations do have the potential to be as tyrannical as the state. Simply put, even if these guys are right, the state-or rather people who make up the state, i.e. politicians-is partnered with them to make money, which means they have money to give and are seeking influence. In this instance the question of who corrupted who is simply unanswerable, and determining which villain is the "super villain" is pointless, which is why I prefer option 3>
3) I like to call option 3 the its all one effing entity theory. I would argue that whether the state, or corporations are responsible for the arrangement is largely irrelevant, and that the most logical way to view the relationship is in an egalitarian way. State and corporate power are not always separate and one is not per se more powerful than the other. Identifying what is state and what is corporate becomes increasingly more difficult the closer the two move together, so I don't see a necessity to view the them as separate and distinct entities. I would identify them as plutocracy, a manufactured and maintained aristocracy, or any number of monikers, and place the overarching emphasis on the fact the two have a shared and often class based interest.
3)
Some food for thought to go with my post.
ReplyDeletehttp://aaeblog.com/2011/01/12/reading-chomsky/#comments
You can follow his links to some other goodies.
I will say I think the state is a pretty complex thing that, yeah, can't be generalized one way or another. I would say Congress fits the bill more as "middle management" whereas institutionalized bureaucracies with independent power (the Fed, the Intelligence agencies, the military) are more like partners who sometimes do things that even the corporate leaders don't like (for example, the embargo on Cuba and sanctions on Iran are unpopular with US business).
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment about Chomsky, I think it's just an issue of realism. I don't really think a financial/corporate apocalypse would result in positive change. I think Chomsky would like to see a peaceful and gradual transition and in that respect, command of the state by popular groups can be a weapon against corporate power, but there is no other way to attack the corporate monopolies.
Re: that link, one thing that you can say about Chomsky is that he is more well informed about the real world than essentially any other public intellectuals. He reads voraciously about real events. I can see how that would color the 'theory' of his radical politics, and might also explain why more theoretical 'anarchists' would not like him. Frankly I think we can both agree that people with radical politics can pretty easily get lost in a fantasy world and lose sight of what's happening in the real human world, and in that fantasy world it's much easier to construct a perceived set of rules that apply evenly and cleanly, when humanity is no where near that simple.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about him being well informed, and the theoretical types do sometimes avoid reality. Although I would say the more interesting ones don't avoid it as much we think. I guess our basic difference is that I don't see, at least in our country, corporate power ending without a widespread anti-statist movement. I don't think the state is necessary for corporate power to exist, but the surest way to ensure that it is not broken up is to continue on the path we are on (I know this is not what you're advocating). My view being that both are equally villainous means that, in my view, the problem should be tackled on both ends, which at times could include the use of the state. I'm not opposed to general welfare if we are cutting off corporate welfare and dismantling monopoly. I just would want a much smaller and in fantasy land non-existent state in the future and wouldn't want a permanent welfare state.
ReplyDeleteJust so know, I'm using popular terms, I actually hate the term "welfare state" because dumb people presume it to mean something different from what we have now. We certainly have welfare now, it by and large flows upward though. Also, it presupposes that welfare would not exist without "the state" which I think is ludicrous.
Also, just so you know, the links I sent you were from a guy who really does like Chomsky. I'm sure you probably picked up on that a little.
ReplyDelete