Austerity

We must do more with less, we must be frugal, prudent, severe. We must be cautious and shrewd. Economical! Life is hard. Blah blah blah. Austerity is a complement to all the wonderfully Calvinist, self-denying and debilitating memes the big Other imposes on the damaged, scarred "sinner" and it is incredible how truly global has been it's embrace since The Crisis.

It turns out most people expect so little out of life now that when they are told they must cut back to one can of beets a week thy beg to make it half. Penance for dreaming too big.
Look at the moral condemnation of the "slothful" Greeks who, like the grasshopper, lived short-sightedly, beyond their means, without proper thrift. Tsk, tsk go the dedicated, hard working masses as they enter the mine, eyes cast downward.

Don't those Mediterranean races know we are all sinful, that life is simply a series of impossible demands and botched attempts to satisfy them? They are like the accused at the Stalinist show trials who professed their innocence, not knowing the more innocent they are the more they deserve to be shot!

Of course the elite laugh all the way to the bank, the morality they impose is just a joke to them, only taken seriously by fools. You must pay for your excess, your exuberance, the proles are told. Otherwise you fall prey to moral hazard! We can't have that now, can we?

There is a strange reversal at work here. No one believes the ridiculous claims made in crass advertising, yet they buy the product. Everyone knows politicians are all liars and yet they continue to vote for them. Everyone knows the media is untrustworthy but believe "the police were attacked by protesters". "Yes I use contraception, I just don't want it to be acceptable." Let me fetishize my own poverty of spirit, revel in it, so that austerity becomes in fact a gift.

Trap of Legitimacy

It is a very good thing that so much creative intelligence is being directed towards imagining the future of Occupy at this moment. Veterans of past struggles combine with those who have totally fresh insights and hopefully both come away with a new, better understanding. One of the hardest aspects of critical appraisal is creating enough emotional distance to admit past failure and the wrong assumptions or analysis it resulted from.

The events in Oakland threw this into sharp relief. Every experienced organizer is reminding "the movement as such" that the goal is broad based support, bringing in the masses, enlisting the tacit approval of the "silent majority", to use the conservative jargon. Of course this has been stressed from the beginning, to the point where folks denied any ideological bias ("this is not left or right") and worried about bringing in union support because it might alienate the Tea Party. Ron Paul market fundamentalists and revolutionary socialists would find common cause under a banner of infinite inclusiveness. Grievances took the place of demands. The guiding principle in all this was GAIN LEGITIMACY.

One way to gain legitimacy is to fold yourself back into those modes that already have legitimacy, social justice advocacy in the form of NGO's, non-profits, mainstream unions, even amorphous social-forum or anti-globalization type groupings. From the Sierra Club to EarthFirst, Komen for the Cure to Code Pink, at least most participants had knowledge of and had participated in these types of organizational structures. And while adopting the outward form of horizontalism, the consensus based assemblies and spokes and stacks, the hierarchical power structure of the "outside world" still needed to be appealed to. This was where the old school organizers came in with a methodology.The media controlled perception, so our image had to be tailored to appear legitimate. Elected authorities still controlled state power so we had to be respectful to stay legitimate. And our bosses still controlled our material circumstances (especially with high unemployment) so our actions had to remain within the legitimate bounds of dissent and protest.

But how do we know what is legitimate? Struggling against a foreign dictatorial or imperialist regime, it appeared legitimate to self-immolate, to throw rocks at police and even drop bombs on the despot (Kadahfi). Strikes by workers and barricades by students are tolerated. But struggling against an economic regime we find such tactics illegitimate. There we are to limit ourselves to economic boycotts, elections and appeals to Parliament. To engaging in campaigns and peaceful protests, perhaps civil disobedience if the issue is "serious". So we know our approach is legitimate by how others react, by whether it runs counter to their ingrained sensibilities.

Legitimacy in this sense is an elaborate social construction designed to protect a hegemonic project, in our case liberal democratic capitalism. Often the most effective challenges to this legitimacy have been humorous or theatrical, artistic and playful, such as the work of Situationists, puppeteers, Yes Men or flash mobs. This messes with "ingrained sensibilities" at a cultural juncture but because capitalist production of culture is always adapting, challenges like this can never rest on their laurels.

Meritocracy

“In his classic “The Promise of American Life”, Herbert Croly noted that 'a democracy, not less than a monarchy or an aristocracy, must recognise political, economic, and social distinctions, but it must also withdraw its consent whenever these discriminations show any tendency to excessive endurance.' So far Americans have been fairly tolerant of economic distinctions. But that tolerance may not last for ever, if the current trend towards “excessive endurance” is not reversed.”

This revealing wordplay is from a 2004 article in The Economist on meritocracy. When Croly says a democracy must recognize “economic discriminations” to some degree, it is arguing for measured inequality, a necessary result of capitalist production. This becomes the normative foundation on which democracy rests. The author then asserts that “democracy” has the capability to determine when the pressure of inequality becomes dangerous and clamp down on capital by withdrawing it's consent. This conceit, that Americans are able to regulate their own inequality, belies the great fiction of so-called liberal democratic capitalism. And if we look closely at the main argument presented in the piece, that the only alternative to aristocracy is a meritocracy, and if we don't preserve the one we will inevitably slip into the other, we uncover a similarly revealing conceit, namely, that the best deserve the most. The ideological function of the discourse around merit is to give this claim universal acceptance but it's true program, like that of “democratic capitalism”, is simply to veil raw power behind liberal language.

The Greek kratos (cracy) is translated as power, so meritocracy refers to a system which bestows power to those who are deserving by virtue of their competence, intelligence, ambition and/or talent. Here the Protestant work ethic as described by Max Weber meets Keynesian “animal spirits”, creating the entrepreneurs, innovators and risk-takers which purportedly propel modern capitalist production. It is the supposed answer to the competing claims of distributive justice and liberty, with either a Rawlsian liberal caveat (the famous veil of ignorance) or a conservative/libertarian rationalization about efficiency,moral hazard and such. In either case, the dilemma for democracy is expressed by this quote: “Most Americans see nothing wrong with inequality as long as it comes with plenty of social mobility; it is simply the price to be paid for a dynamic society.” In this view, meritocracy is an ethical trade-off necessary to avoid the nightmare of uniformity, stagnation and the steady drift towards the lowest common denominator.
In contrast, I believe the most persuasive challenge to the notion of the meritocratic society lies within this false choice between equality or dynamism. A much more cooperative, egalitarian, less competitive society can still be equally dynamic, motivated less by material incentives than by shared benefits such as leisure time and increased collective well being. Metrics for measuring dynamism, such as GDP, are now recognized as fundamentally flawed. In fact, dynamism measured this way is the motor driving the planets life systems towards ecological catastrophe.
In terms of the so-called ethical trade off, there is simply no moral logic which could justify granting rewards based on blessings or gifts inherited in the “gene pool lottery” ( IQ, aptitude, physical strength, etc), much less the inherited gifts overlooked by merit proponents such as wealth, property, privilege and power. A much more just system of remuneration would reward effort and sacrifice, as well as the duration and onerousness of labor. Not it's output. In this way, we avoid not just a modern aristocracy but the class conflict which has de-stabilized society since the industrial revolution as well.

addition: I just found this over at Salon, America's Failed Promise of Equal Opportunity by Alex Gourrevitch and Aziz Rana. A progressive critique of Meritocracy that never mentions capitalist ideology and calls for full employment and workers cooperatives. Quite tepid and yet the hysterical screaming by liberals in the comments shows the degree to which the kool-aid has been consumed. They even use race to the bottom!

Kicking Off

Paul Mason's book Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere is a sort of left wing version of Tom Freidman's Flat Earth hypothesis, creating linkages between new information technologies to world political development and ongoing struggles. He did a great deal of travelling and interviewing and research and the book is getting lots of buzz. I really need to read more before commenting on his basic argument.

What I do want to look at is some things he said in a recent interview concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement.Looking to history he points out:

"This movement is content to live within capitalism, to create it's space within capitalism, but the problem is, capitalism might be about to go into a level of crisis that doesn't allow you to do that. This generation of protesters could easily suffer the fate of social democracy."

In our local Occupy discussions about a vision going forward it is clear that a necessary starting place is consensus on WHERE WE ARE NOW. I've harped on this before but everything depends on your definition of crisis. If you believe we are experiencing a crisis of corporate corruption and de-regulation you will turn to re-regulation. If you believe the corruption infects deep into politics/governance, you will want to see the courts create remedies to check the legislative-executive branches. If you think the crisis is the total capture of democracy including the judicial branch and the media, you have to look at even broader systemic or structural remedies including the hegemonic role of capitalism. We aren't there yet.

We know starting in the 1890's those who thought the system could be reformed, such as Eduard Bernstein, started a deliberate 40 year program to build an electoral base. "The movement is everything," he famously said, "the ends are nothing." He could not have seen the World Wars coming that would destroy his project but that's the thing about historical development, it is not smooth or seamless, it is uneven. The revolutionists of Egypt do not have the luxury of such "ends are nothing" thinking. Do we?

There are literally hundreds of programs out there now to "build a better capitalism". Even as Fukuyama abandons his own theory, a huge majority accept liberal democratic capitalism as "the end of history". Mark Fisher explores this in depth in his book Capitalist Realism. Solidarity economy. Blue economy, Steady state, Slow growth, no growth,New Economy Great Transformation perma-culture Transition Towns have an obvious appeal and to the degree they can present themselves as "radical alternatives" they will draw folks away from true anti-capitalist critiques such as Parecon.

Why Are Corporations Bad? part 5

You cannot spit without hitting some article blaming corporations for the mess the world is in. According to this meme "They" rape and pillage at will, they are the 1% who hog everything, they are the elite who control everything and THEY must be stopped before it is too late. To many, "they" are synonymous with Wall Street and the opposite of Main Street. This seems to be the thing that finally unites the left, from Occupy to Yes magazine!

But I'm thinking this is yet another misdirection. By focusing on one organizational strategy of capital rather than the logic of capitalism itself, you risk a myopic view leading to a myopic "solution".I'm no fan of corporations,mind you, but what is it exactly that is so objectionable to so many? The hierarchical structure? The sheer size of the biggies? Their disproportional influence over the "political" process? What is a corporation really?

A corporation is a group authorized to act as a single entity. The business my mechanic buddy owns is incorporated so that his liability is limited (he won't lose his house if his employee does something stupid). He is on Main Street. So it must be the organizational model. But no, he allows his two employees equal decision making power.Google feeds it's employees catered lunches and pays really good. I know a farmer with ten seasonal employees who exploits the shit out his help. So it must be the size factor, when they get too big they can demand things or buy people. As monopolies they can corner markets. But how big is too big? (can we pinpoint some number?) And what would keep them from splitting up but still coordinating? What if they formed trade organizations? What if they met in Switzerland and made plans?

The point here is that the local Main Street store can be twice as ruthless as Costco. And their union, the Chamber of Commerce, is viciously anti-worker. And a small, local bank can screw you just as effectively as a big one. Their board of directors is no more transparent than Goldman Sachs and the CEO might be a racist reactionary way worse than Blankfien.

So if people want to spend all their energy de-corporatizing capitalism (pit bull) to make it smaller and gentler and kinder (like a puppy?) they will find themselves on the ground having their throats ripped out by a pack of chows.

Say The Word

At a recent gathering of the Republican Governors Association, influential pollster and strategist Frank Luntz urged conservative politicians to stop using the word “capitalism”. He said “I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market'. The public... still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral.”
Within Occupy, as within all the social justice movements or groups I have worked with for decades, there is a similar tension over use of this word, with some folks slinging it about comfortably and many others finding it divisive or a barrier to organizing broad based support. In both cases, what I believe is clear is that language and words matter ; they are an important terrain of struggle. What do we know about this word which has been taboo for so long and seems to have such power?
At some point those gathered under the large umbrellas of social or environmental justice run into the question of economic justice. Though not something taught in Econ.101, it might show up in an ethics or philosophy class under the rubric of “distributive justice”, who gets what and why. Should a society or state re-distribute wealth, resources, opportunity, rights? This is where progressives battle conservatives over social democracy and an expanded welfare state, regulation, social uplift etc..
But there is an even deeper question, which is: why are outcomes unequal in the first place? This is where radicals and progressives butt heads. Conservatives like Luntz hope to avoid discussions about equality or morality(usury) or justice or “vulture vs venture” by just replacing the word capitalism. Progressives hope to advance their program of safety nets and re-distribution by avoiding it. Those who wish to do away with the system altogether try to use the word at every opportunity, to keep it glaringly exposed under the brightest possible spotlight. They believe it is not just the King who has no clothes, but that with enough critical examination, it will eventually begin to dawn on us how naked we all are.

Another Fork in the Road

Sooner or later the question comes up: What about property relations? Occupy danced around the issue by convening in public or semi-public spaces and claiming first amendment rights to assembly. But those Leftists will always show up who want to push the issue and say: What about property with locks on the doors? In the case of Occupy Oakland yesterday, they attempted a squat in an empty Convention Center (which I believe is owned by the City) but nonetheless is differentiated from a park or courthouse lawn by those same locks.

In Argentina, after the 2001 economic collapse and capital flight, several empty factories with locks on the doors were occupied by the former workers and put back into production.This was private property and really called into question the relationship between the state and capital. We know how conservatives react to such an affront but what about more liberal or progressive factions? Here is a comment on the Dissenter at Firedoglake thread which calls the question:

"I know quite a few people who got involved in Occupy Oak when it got started: mainstream progressives. The local view of this–not what’s fed to the MSM–is that participation has steadily shifted to the “traditional leftist/anarchist” activists (the folks who belonged to the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade back when I was a Berkeley). Taking over Kaiser “because The People own it and The People need a place to sleep” is a big step beyond where the vast majority of the progressive crowd is, and this is annoying the vast majority of the folks who support the Occupy movement in general.

The OPD is definitely not past it’s ugly “Riders” past, shoots before asking questions, and should rightly–along with the very confused Jean Quan–be beaten over the head with their stupidity and inability to approach the situation without making it ten times worse.

But sorry folks, the Oakland Occupy “consensus” is detrimental to the cause because it destroys so much “capital” (as mentioned a couple of times above) that has been getting the movement closer and closer to getting actually positive mainstream coverage. I’m with them that we should do more to help the homeless, but they’ve hijacked the cause for their attitude and goals that even progressives have no problem calling “Trotskyite”…."

Our own local Occupy Missoula was quick to call for a condemnation of protester "violence" using this same logic of "mainstream" sentiment and political "capital" being wasted. My feeling about the Black Bloc is that they are often anti-political lifestyle "anarchists" running on testosterone and dystopia movies, headbanger music,energy drinks, etc..Burning flags is tactically stupid provocation. But legitimate anarchist questioning of private property and the desire for a militant escalation of tactics, such as squatting to start a social center, needs serious discussion. I think it is the next phase of a movement too focused on legalistic and electoral remedies.

It is a complex unity and consensus will be difficult, wrenching even. May Day is coming up. This was just a glimpse.