In the political science literature, a lot of work rides on placing people on a left-right spectrum. Problem, is I don't think the categories are real, but are defined in circular ways. Rather than a set of policy positions defining position on the spectrum, it seems like the policy positions are selected to characterize left or right on the basis of the correlation between those positions and people you have already defined as left or right wing. Why should a position in favor of abortion rights be inherently "left" wing? Doesn't it make as much sense for a right-wing authoritarian to embrace abortion as a tool for controlling and shaping the population? We use a pro-choice position as an indicator of liberalism because it is a position typical of people we think of as liberals.
You also run lots of writing that sets up an opposition between neo-liberalism and a more collective alternate form of social organization and government, some form of a renewed welfare state or maybe socialism. The assumptions of neo-liberalism are so deeply embedded that the alternative is to a great extent theoretical. You have a problem of actually existing collectivism, similar to the problem one used to have with actually existing socialism.
One thing that characterizes the left/right liberal/conservative discourse and discussion of neo-liberalism and its alternatives is that in both cases you are dealing with a one dimensional spectrum or a bi-polar opposition. There is no reason experience should be limited to this dimensionality, and framing things this way does not line up with what I see when I really look.
I see 3 alternative political and economic philosophies in competition: neo-liberal democracy, Western style or traditional authoritarianism, and State capitalism. Neo-liberalism is what is practiced in most democracies in the world today, with markets as the basis for all activity, with the model extended ever deeper into social relationships and disciplinary tools training people to act as entrepreneurs of the self. Much of the role of government is to set up and enforce a clean set of rules so all can play. Loyalty to the market trumps all. In the US, the major competitor to this model is outright authoritarianism, where the goal of government is to privilege parts of society who will support the dominance of a singular leader. Authoritarianism maintains markets but is willing to distort them in favor of politically "appropriate" actors. Loyalty to the leader and its faction trumps all. In State capitalism, the State intervenes in the market actively, and combines state-owned (socialized) and private enterprise in shifting ways. It maintains markets, but does not trust them to serve society well enough to provide necessary social stability and to inspire pervasive acquiescence among the population. Stability of the nation trumps all in state capitalism.
The traditional authoritarian models include Hungary, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines, and importantly Trumpism. I'm tempted to call it neo-authoritarianism, but mostly for the parallelism with neo-liberalism, and I haven't work out a clever set of distinctions to distinguish neo- from old school authoritarianism. But then again, sometimes I doubt whether neo-liberalism is a new thing, or a continuation of liberalism after a short interruption with a Keynesian variant.
In the US, the biggest split in society is between those who want to maintain a neo-liberal democracy and those who long for authoritarianism.
China is the main example of state capitalism, and even if it where the only one, the fact that 20% of the people in the world live there justifies elevating it to a world-level system. Some other countries may fit this model--say Iran.
From what I can see, these models can account for pretty much every country on the globe. There was a time when some of the northern European countries stood apart, but they've mostly been subsumed into neo-liberalism.
The difference between prevailing neo-liberalism and a theoretical alternative model does make it into electoral politics in the Democratic Party where there is some struggle between moderate democrats and a democratic socialist flank. But for now the democratic socialist model is mostly theoretical, and it is hard to see the path for it coming into practice. You might argue that some municipal governments are trying it out--say Portland or Seattle--but even there, they get pushback from a business sector--the thing that defines much experience in Seattle is really big companies, and tech-based civic boosterism is strong. Also, there is only so much that you can do on the municipal level. Most tax policy gets set on a State level. Important functions like prisons and universities are on that level.
For now, I'm using this tri-polar model to understand the socio-political landscape. We'll see how it holds up.
No comments:
Post a Comment