Class War: Countering Misinformation Among the Working Class

Noam Chomsky notes, “We don’t use the term ‘working class’ because it is a taboo term. You’re supposed to say ‘middle class’ because it helps diminish the understanding that there is a class war going on.” In a regime faithful to neoliberal tenets, governance must be carried out within the constraints of the doctrines of limited government and self-regulating markets. This type of management shifts the locus of power away from citizens and their representatives towards those with capital. Defending individual freedom is used as a rallying cry by neoliberals to legitimatize emasculating governing agencies. But this choice gives rise to an apparent dilemma, namely in the absence of a robust civil government, who exercises power and how is it exercised? How do they respond to the call to deal with the fact wages of working class Americans have been stagnant or falling? The answer is neoliberals shrilly accuse Obama of initiating a class war when he prepares to unveil plans for increased taxes on those earning more than one million dollars a year.

Consequences of the Black Death included a series of cultural, religious and economic influences culminating in the end of the Middle Ages and the emergence of the Renaissance. The Black Death was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, peaking in Europe between 1347 and 1350 with 30% to 60% of the population killed. As the Black Death swung the balance in the peasant’s favor, the literate elite bemoaned a disintegrating social and economic order. The rural worker bargained for less onerous responsibilities and better conditions, and received higher payments in cash in the plague’s aftermath. The Black Death led to a great questioning of the old certainties. Many increasingly turned to the classics to find answers to the problems of life. In mid-15th century refugees from Constantinople brought Roman and Greek manuscripts, which became available for many through the newly invented printing press. The Renaissance ideas introduced humanist principles that included human rights like freedom and dignity.

Economically and politically, the plague caused an upward distribution of wealth in the long run, as the nobility and the church took over the land of plague victims. This great wealth in the nobility and the church started off a patronage war between the nobility (the old money), the church, and the new money traders who were reaping the benefits of newfound commercialism in Italy. Their way of fighting for power/respect often took the form of seeing who could pay artists and intellectuals the most as a part of patronage. This made artistry a lucrative profession, and sparked one of the greatest art movements in European history, the Renaissance. Education was central to the humanist movement since humanists believed that education could change immensely human beings. Humanists wrote books on education and developed secondary schools based on their ideas. All of the achievements and discoveries of the Renaissance became the building blocks of the Enlightenment progress.

The upper class in the German regions of the Holy Roman Empire began clawing back many of the freedoms the peasants had achieved following the Black Death. This led to the peasants’ revolt of 1524. The Twelve Articles outlined the peasant’s demands for social, economic and religious reforms. These included mitigation on rate of interest, compulsory service to the lords and princes, and legal penalties, for restoration of former economic conditions, and the free rights to land use, hunting and fishing – the return of the commons. The upper classes survived by exploiting the peasant and plebeian classes and saw the danger in offering them equality. It triggered a class war. About one hundred thousand combatants and civilians were killed before the fighting died down in late 1525. The defeat of the peasants and the poorer classes in the towns brought a complete repudiation of their demands for a more just economic system.

John Locke (1632-1704), one of the British Empiricists, argued that all of our ideas are ultimately derived from experience, and the knowledge of which we are capable is therefore severely limited in its scope and certainty. Locke was one of the originators of the social contract theory – a persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Locke’s father was a captain of cavalry for the Parliamentarian forces during the English Civil War. Locke was in fact most concerned with defending the gentry, the property-owning élite who desired to be protected from the potential tyranny of a powerful monarch who could seize property. In 17th century England, the franchise and the right to sit as a Member of Parliament were strictly limited to the property-owning class. Thus only a small percentage of the population had access to the English Parliament that vaunted its supremacy with regard to the Monarchy.

During the Enlightenment, as during the Renaissance, private secondary schools were mostly dominated by religious orders, especially by the Jesuits. However, a great difference with the Renaissance was the development of new schools designed to provide a broader education, which offered modern languages, geography and bookkeeping, preparing students for careers in business. Among the most important technological innovations of the Renaissance was the printing press. This process was vital for the diffusion of knowledge and humanist ideas. The expansion of both, publishing and the reading public, became particularly visible during the Enlightenment. Even though, as during the Renaissance, most of the published works were aimed at small groups of educated elite, there appeared more publications for the new reading public. This new reading public consisted mainly of the middle classes and included women and urban artisans. While it is common to conceive of the Enlightenment as supplanting the authority of tradition and religious dogma with the authority of reason, in fact the Enlightenment is characterized by a crisis of authority regarding any belief.

The trick neoliberals employ is to maintain the myth of democracy through regular elections, but to separate any real power from the hands of those elected. Because they theorize a regime of self-regulating markets without the need of government, elected officials become simply the agents who ensure the preservation of the rule of law, and the establishment of an environment in which negotiations can take place between competing agents. The question of power is abandoned completely and thrown behind the veil of the neutral market. And it is not likely that proponents would see the neoliberal regime as representing a new form of tyranny, being convinced, in the tradition of Adam Smith, that the system harnesses the selfishness of the people and directs it to public good, thus freeing itself from the need to depend unrealistically on the uncertain moral virtues of its participants.

The question posed is who exercises power in a neoliberal regime, that is to say, in a regime which designates individual freedom as the cardinal value to be preserved, and which, as a result, functions by putting its faith in self-regulating markets. We see that this type of governance gives no specific role to government to represent the common interest; instead a variety of stakeholders bargain settlements. For neoliberals, governance is thus reduced to the role of managing conflict and organizing negotiations between stakeholders in a free market environment. In this type of regime characterized by self-regulating markets, participation in decision-making requires the person to be an economic actor. Governments become one actor among many, thereby abandoning their reformist liberal role of imposing limits on the capital-holding class, and of representing the general interest, notably as the advocate of equal opportunity.  In other words, without capital there is no access to the locus of power.1

While corporate profits and executive pay have soared during the past decade, corporate boards and CEOs have crushed unions, demanded tax cuts, and lobbied for roll backs of government policies that help the working class and protect the environment. This is a class war the haves have declared on the have-nots to maximize profits by depressing wages.  Because of media bias low income voters tend to evaluate the state of the economy in accordance with income going to the most wealthy. This level of misinformation makes possible the adoption of policies that benefit the wealthiest citizens at the expense of the great majority of the American people. The economic elite funnel money to Washington to influence government policies in their favour. At the same time the working class has steadily lost influence on Capitol Hill, most notably because of the decline of unions. Unions played an important role in countering the political misinformation among the working class.

A small group of America’s business leaders have declared war against Main Street. How can the class war that the economic elite have declared on the working class be won, when the current political system is so utterly unresponsive to the will and the needs of the majority? Participation in public opinion polls and voting will not be enough to reinstate an accountable democratic government that will reverse the disturbing trend of growing economic inequality. Humanists (of the Renaissance) believed that human beings could be dramatically changed by education. Education of the Enlightenment sought to liberate the human mind from dogma and encourage questioning and skepticism to seek knowledge and truth. We now understand the etiology of the increasing economic inequality. An effort must be made to counter the misinformation among the working class and educate the 99% that neoliberalism is class war waged by economic elite against the working class.

1 Ives, Andrew. (26 Aug 2015) Neoliberalism and the concept of governance: Renewing with an older liberal tradition to legitimate the power of capital http://mimmoc.revues.org/2263 DOI :10.4000/mimmoc.2263

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

On Identity Politics, Poor Governance and Health Inequities

Neoliberals reject actions of the New Dealers to apply their brand of Keynesian, interventionist political economy. In a regime faithful to neoliberal tenants, governance must be carried out within the constraints of the doctrine of limited government and self-regulating markets. This type of management shifts the locus of power away from citizens and their representatives towards those with capital. Governments adopt the neoliberal governance model creating the mechanism of a free market for decision making-processes. This returns to the past to place power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, today recognized as the economic elite – a group who has capital to invest and whose goal is to accumulate more. With the increasing economic gap and reduced social mobility, progressives now focus on the exploitation created by the neoliberal policies of minimal government and regulation. In return, discrimination (reverse racism) has become part of the neoliberal narrative of inequality. Identity politics have become an issue.

The adoption of the neoliberal governance model allows the introduction of the concept of stakeholder. Now a government mandated by the people is reduced to one actor in the decision-making process, rather than the essential dominant decider. Instead of seeing their role as representing the public interest, and protecting that interest by imposing limits on the power of the private actors, this definition of governance puts the government on equal footing with other actors. Instead of being subject to limits imposed by government, private factions then become negotiating partners. There is no longer a role for the government as an advocate for the general interest; instead government is seen as one actor representing a competing interest with other legitimate actors. The public interest is assumed to be met by reaching ‘agreements’ with the various actors. Under the neoliberal era, this concept of governance has contributed to putting decision-making power back into the hands of those who possess capital, and limiting the influence of government and their regulatory agencies.

Private money plays an important role in US politics since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling removed virtually all limits corporations and non-profit groups can spend on federal elections, and how much individuals can give to political action groups. Neoliberal activity has blown the social contract apart. The consequence is intense anxiety from increased economic insecurity that distracts a worrisome percentage of people. What makes our society unstable is when the illusions around income inequality start to disappear. People can or are more willing to overlook income inequality as long as their quality of life remains unchanged. As long as the greediness of the neoliberals does not affect their day to day life – your retirement is funded, you can afford to take vacations – you are willing to look away while the economic elite are doing their thing. However, this ultimately becomes the problem, enough is not really enough for certain rich individuals. Unless there are checks and balances, the economic elite keep working the system until it breaks down.1

When introducing electoral reforms to the British Parliament in 1831, the prime minister, Earl Grey said, “There is no-one more decided against annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and the ballot, than I … I am reforming to preserve, not to overthrow.” The reforms that extended political power from a narrow elite to larger sections of society were immediately viewed as a success not because of some ideal of enlightenment or democracy, rather because the threat of revolution or further unrest was avoided. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), was one of the greatest 19th century British philosophers, whose ethical theory was to justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals. Mill’s observations on utilitarianism: “Actions are right in the proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Dissatisfied with both socialism and capitalism, Mill envisioned a hybrid system in order to promote the individualism of the worker. He was fully aware of the harms wrought by the capitalist system of the late 19th century and notes the system is failing to produce widespread happiness – too many hard-working individuals are unfairly consigned to poverty. Mill’s conclusion: there is no good reason – there is no natural and therefore immutable reason – to live with the consequences of economic laws if we do not like the effects of these laws.2

What about today’s economic governance? Thomas Piketty observes capitalism in the 21st century has concentrated so much wealth in the hands of so few, while the millions left behind are now angry at the system. The middle class society that flourished for a generation after World War II has vanished. After 1980 the lion’s share of economic gains went to the top end of the income distribution, with families in the bottom half lagging behind. Today the economy is not controlled by talented individuals, rather by family dynasties. Piketty’s argument is that in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth. Economic neoliberalism creates levels of inequality that for all intensive purposes is not reversible by itself. Piketty concludes the level of inequality in the US is ‘probably higher than in any other society in the past, anywhere in the world.’

During the primaries, Senator Bernie Sanders was able to tap into the anger of voters – and was able to make income inequality an issue for a reason. Now there is a permanent income inequality plank in the Democratic Party progressive agenda. Republicans have effectively turned identity politics against Democrats with such language as ‘thought police’ and ‘politically correct’. Many believe the Democrats lost the 2016 election because of identity politics – catering to cultural or social interests of groups such as gays, Muslims, blacks and transgender populations. Basically because the Democratic Party embraced racial, religious and sexual minorities, they were abandoned by a significant segment of working-class white people. Remember John Stuart Mill claimed there should be opportunities for individual fulfillment for all members of society. It is not racism that creates differences between classes; it is capitalism. Instead of a more complicated understanding of identity (race, sex), we need a more profound understanding of exploitation.

In the 19th century Bentham recognized the exploitive character of the capitalist relationship. Inequality and inequity are not interchangeable. Inequity is unfair, avoidable differences arising from poor governance, corruption, or cultural exclusion. It is the result of human failure giving rise to avoidable deaths and disease. It is necessary to focus on the economy with its multifaceted connections to social issues. Inequities reduce the freedom and opportunities for an individual to reach their full potential in general, and wellness or good health, in particular. Inequity is the biggest factor affecting the health of the population. Health equity suggests that everyone can reach their full health potential and that they should not be disadvantaged from attaining this potential as a result of their class, socioeconomic status or other socially determined circumstance. The present economic situation is associated with an increasing inequity and poverty in Canada and the US.

Neoliberalism casts inequality as virtuous – as everyone gets what they deserve. Many now believe it is not enough to define poverty as not having enough material resources to merely survive, but rather having enough resources to participate in society in a meaningful way. Peter Townsend’s definition of poverty: people are deprived if they cannot obtain at all, or sufficiently the conditions of life – diets, amenities, standards and services – which allow them to play the roles, participate in relationships and follow the customary behavior which is expected of them by virtue of their membership in society. The consequences of the lack of participation are disengagement from school, community and political affairs. The stress that comes from the inequality of our society, and in particular from economic inequality, may have more effect on our health than any other single factor.

The social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities – the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries. Poverty is a key factor underlying whether these determinants of health can be obtained. Social inequity is unfair, avoidable, differences arising from poor governance, corruption, or cultural exclusion. With the increasing income gap, many have lost their previous opportunity to achieve their potential – inequities potentially leave the most vulnerable at sustained risk and disadvantage.

Progressives must avoid identity politics in public messaging. This is why it is necessary to focus messaging on poor governance and health inequities associated with neoliberal policies. Health inequities are differences in health status between population groups that are socially produced, and systematic in their unequal distribution across the population, but avoidable and unfair. Living in a society that tolerates large gaps between the rich and the poor is bad for your health. There is a strong and widespread consensus that income and social status are the most important determinants of health across populations. Neoliberal governance is not an innovative and efficient management technique, rather a means to impose unpopular decisions related to the dismantling of New Deal reforms, and to conceal the return of decision-making power to the economic elites. The new system must make economic and environment decisions through the lens of the social determinants of health in order to counter the inequity in the system.

1 Ives, Andrew. Neoliberalism and the concept of governance: Renewing with an older liberal tradition to legitimate the power of capital. (2015) https://mimmoc.revues.org/2263

2 Lenard, Patti. (04 Aug 2016) John Stuart Mill and the importance of individuality. http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=6124&title=John-Stuart-Mill-and-the-importance-of-individuality

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Neoliberal Lie And the Rise of the Working Poor

The neoliberal lie postulates that the reduction of state interventions in economic and social activities and the deregulation of labor and financial markets, as well as of commerce and investments, liberates the enormous potential of capitalism to create an unprecedented era of social well-being in the world’s population. The partial economic recovery in European Union member countries has in no way contributed to easing poverty among workers. The ‘working poor’ is a class now identified as those working hard but unfortunate enough not to fit into skilled labour – for the most part whose unions and rights have been taken from them and whose weekly wages have all but stagnated, but mostly declined over the past decade, have been propelled into chronic poverty and underemployment. Corporations, along with their international partners in crime, siphon off billions via secretive off-shore accounts to avoid paying taxes. This leaves countries cash starved for social programs for the poor and ill.

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, two of England’s foremost literary figures of the last century, each wrote a compelling description of a future dystopia, both of them nightmare visions of society totally under the control of a ruling clique whose only purpose is the enjoyment of power. The most striking parallel of course is that both men foresaw the future as totalitarian rather than democratic and free. Today economic elites control corporate and media interests who continue to hollow out democratic principles to further their goals. This new world-totalitarianism is a panoptical world constructed on the basis of fear and authority. Governing occurs by providing individuals with choices and holding them accountable for the choices they make. Neoliberalism creates insecurity through the use of indicators and measures to assess the performance of an individual. In turn, alternative media maintain the illusion that merely hides crime, hypocrisy, and moral bankruptcy, that is threatened by truth and honesty.

There is no difference between the fake news, misinformation, disinformation of today – such lies have been churned out for years, and it is all designed to support the oligarchs. Today there is a new battleground – social media. This so-called fake news made to look like credible journalistic reports are easily spread online to large audiences, often to naïve and wide audiences who end up spreading it. The disease is dubbed ‘post-truth politics’ which are finely tuned and sophisticated appeals based around peoples fears and emotions rather than facts and policies required to make informed rational decisions. Donald Trump denounces in the mainstream media any news story or news organization that displeases him as fake news. Trump surrogates lie every time they open their mouths to persistently push mistruths of Trump’s alternative reality (making Trump one of the leading sources of fake news around).

First, the amount of misinformation available grows proportionally with the availability of valid information. In fact, it may grow even faster because of the lack of fact-checking in much of the new media. The main reason that people are more likely to believe false information (for example, that climate change is a hoax) is because it actually takes less brainpower to believe a statement is false than to accept it as truth. Whether we believe something is true boils down to something psychologists call processing fluency, i.e. the ease with which we mentally process information. Fluency plays a subconscious role in many of the conclusions we draw about the world around us. Judgements of truth, require time and effort: for example, under the original GOP repeal of  Obamacare everyone would get a tax cut, but in fact, there would be a significant tax break for high earners – the top 0.1% earners would get a $207,000 tax cut, while the bottom 20% would receive an average reduction of $150.00.

It is commonly believed that people’s long-term memory records events that we experience exactly as they happened, just like a DVR records episodes exactly as they first appeared on television. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, researchers have found that long-term memory is very prone to errors and can easily be altered and molded. The inaccuracy of long-term memory is enhanced by the misinformation effect, which occurs when misleading information is incorporated into one’s memory after an event. Reliance on misinformation differs from ignorance, which we define as the absence of relevant knowledge. Ignorance, too, can have obvious detrimental effects on decision-making, but perhaps surprisingly, those effects may be less severe than those arising from reliance on misinformation. Ignorance may be a lesser evil because in the self-acknowledged absence of knowledge, people often turn to simple heuristics (strategies derived from previous experiences with similar problems) when making decisions.

The postmodernist’s premise is that no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths exist – facts are socially constructed. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective efforts to explain reality. Now enters Trump, a man who has great distain for facts – a man who can make two conflicting statements in a day without blinking an eye. In Trump’s world, the “image” is all there is. In 2016, to the frustrated and disillusioned, Trump promises a better path. The political lies of the last forty years include: the deception used by false intel to sell the invasion of Iraq; the need for austerity, which is merely ideology to make the rich and powerful more rich and powerful, and the great lie of neoliberalism. The highlight is the May and Trump talk of re-skilling, re-equipping, and re-industrialism of the homeland – which is an absolute reversal of the experiment we were all mis-sold for forty years.

Social classes are hierarchical groupings of individuals that are usually based on wealth, educational attainment, occupation, income, or membership in a subculture or social network. The class system in America puts those with the most wealth, power, and prestige at the top of the hierarchy and those with the least at the bottom. In the second decade of the 21st century the middle class has been stripped of jobs, income, and security. People are motivated by custom or tradition, by emotions, by religious or ethical values, and by rational goal oriented behavior. All human behavior, Max Weber (1864-1920) claims, is motivated by various combinations of these four basic factors. However, just because an action is rational in terms of fulfillment of a short-term goal, Weber asserts, does not mean it is rational in terms of the whole society. It often happens, he writes, that an excessive focus on short-term goals undermines the very goals of society. Reducing business income taxes and reducing taxes on repatriated foreign earnings would provide little incentive to hire or invest.

It is necessary to replace socioeconomic status with class as the significant structural factor in determining whether people reach their potential. Class represents structural characteristics of society. Recently the structural class perspective is the rise of the working poor. Social inequalities, such as income, are a consequence of structural change in class power. It is about the rise of business power and the decline in labor power (as part of the era of globalization) along with the attacks of the “new right” on the welfare state – consequently there is a rapid rise in social, income and health inequalities. But in terms of income and wealth for the top 1 percent, neoliberalism was a dramatic success. The truth is policies that would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost includes reducing employers’ payroll taxes, increasing aid to unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits for lower and middle income households.

In summary, finding the truth takes time and effort that people often don’t care enough to spend on particular issues that aren’t of immediate concern. The main reason that misinformation is sticky, according to the researchers, is that rejecting information actually requires cognitive effort. Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true – it requires additional motivational and cognitive resources. If the topic isn’t very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold. How do we combat the mental apathy that helps reinforce misinformation? A big part of it is engaging audiences with fact-checking and verification rather than just pushing information to them. If we want evidence-based practice and policy in a democratic society, then science communication, journalism, and education will have to take on the challenges associated with misinformation.1

The American system of education is rooted in the Socratic tradition where questioning and skepticism are the foundation to the teaching-learning process. With respect to trickle-down economics, the effects of neoliberal capitalism with the 2008 financial crisis is the greatest broken promise (or lie) of our lifetime. People support democracy and capitalism, just not the version espoused by the present economic elite. We need to re-introduce into the universities the type of critical thinking that helped illuminate the way for the thinkers during the Enlightenment and created a cultural revolution that produced new ideas and values. This new intellectual revolution needs to question the workings of society and government, explain the purpose of government, and describe the best form of it to create a new middle class wealth boom.2

1 Cousins, Farron. (24 Sept 2012) Psychological Study Reveals Why Misinformation Is So Effective. https://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/20/psychological-study-reveals-why-misinformation-so-effective 

2 Part 2 of 2: The Class System and Education http://questioningandskepticism.com/part-2-of-2-the-class-system-and-education/

 

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Victim Politics Is Part of the Strategy of the Neoliberal Counter-revolution

In order to understand the current conservative backlash movement, it is necessary to comprehend the role played by fantasies of victimhood that supports victim politics. Victim identification is one of the strongest political forces in the world today. Not only do religious fundamentalists base their identity on real or imagined scenarios of victimhood, but after 9/11, the strongest countries in the world were able to present themselves as victims. Victim mentality is an acquired (learned) personality trait in which a person tends to regard him or herself as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to think, speak and act as if that were the case – even in the absence of clear evidence. As we learn from psychoanalysis, victims always see themselves as innocent and pure as they reject all criticism and justify all vengeful hostility.

Three years after the economic debacle of 2008 the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests began – connected by the anger of the common person against the banks for manipulating the system and tanking the economy. The OWS protesters reminded us that, since the 2008 financial debacle, there has been no progress on significant reforms of the financial services industry (to reduce the risk of reoccurrence). Throughout the middle ages the Catholic Church sunk deeper into a pit of scandal and corruption. A German monk by the name of Martin Luther set out to reform the Catholic Church – and ended up sparking the Protestant Reformation. In response, the Catholic Church set in motion the counter-reformation. This counter-revolution was led by conservative forces whose aim was both to reform the church and to secure its traditions against the innovations of Protestant theology and against the more liberalizing effects of the Renaissance.

The greatest victory for the neoconservatives was not that they highjack the theories of neoliberalism and use them to promote their own political global agenda but the fact that they managed to make the world to see their ideas as necessary or even the best way, perhaps the only way, for the social order to be regulated. Neoliberalism in all horrible reality is a significant disruptive force that dominates policy, politics, and culture to the advantage of the select few, enabling concentration of wealth and power to breed totalitarian nation-states. The great prophets of neoliberal economic policies like Milton Friedman claim economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom; it appears neoliberalism is a breeding ground for totalitarian tendencies, not free will and democracy. The strategy of neoliberalism has been successful based upon the income and wealth of a privileged minority gaining political dominance.1

Erdogan once declared that democracy was “a vehicle, not a goal”, implying one could disembark at any time. In the 2007 election cycle the Turkish military opposes the then Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul as the AKP’s favourite candidate for president. Erdogan called for a new election; the AKP received 47% of the vote. This provided the renewed popular mandate for Gul to be the 11th president. Then Istanbul police uncovered an alleged plot to overthrow the government. The subsequent high profile trials have captivated Turkey from 2007 to 2013. The investigation promised to root out the “deep state” – an alleged network of media, intelligence and civilian officials along with journalists and academics. It is now claimed that significant portions of the evidence was fabricated. During this time Erdogan consolidated personal power and in the process transformed Turkish society. Since 2010 constitutional amendments gave AKP greater ability to pack the courts with sympathetic judges.

After 2002, the stability of AKP’s one party rule was welcomed by all segments of the economic elite since it immediately and fully committed itself to the neoliberal model. The democratic reversal expanded – in order to do business with the government oligarchs were encouraged to purchase media properties that could be counted on to faithfully report what the prime minster wanted. The AKP pursued a political strategy based on polarization. The Gezi Park protest which began as a protest to save green spaces became an outpouring of anger over police brutality, crony capitalism and the arrogance of power. The Turkish oligarchy that emerged as a result of the restructuring was part of the subsequent systemic corruption of the economic elites leading to political fragmentation. The protests against privatization were handled by marginalizing the discourse of the opposition group (i.e. labour) – basically taking advantage of the economic crisis to deepen neoliberal policies.2

In Poland, the hard right PiS paints itself as anti-establishment with a paranoiac vision of plots and agents. Their leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski long railed against the hidden Uklad or System, said to link key parts of the security services, media, political class and economic oligarchy. Kaczynski tapped into nationalism – nostalgia for a past era of material security – leveraging enthusiastic support for neoliberal reform. The demise of social democracy by scandals opened the way for his party to champion itself as protecting the transformation losers and helping them get back what is rightfully theirs. The PiS was elected based on opposition to reforms carried out by its rivals. This plan also included xenophobic hyper-nationalism along with policies that target disproportionate harm to women, immigrants and other marginalized groups. While the PiS leadership rail against the system, they are part of the political elite allowing the redistribution of wealth upwards.3

Rodrigo Duterte, a populist demagogue, assumed office of President of Philippines in June 2016. He was elected on a promise to rid the country of crime and drugs. He came across as challenging the elite with crude language. However, a day after the election he appeared on television with a popular televangelist and his inaugural speech was obscenity-free. He is a tough guy who is hyper-sensitive to criticism. To him human rights are not an issue as more than 3,000 have been killed in a drug war since he took power. He thinks out loud, in long rambling monologues, laced with inscrutable jokes and wild exaggeration. His is a style that leads to misunderstanding amongst journalists. Duterte’s spokesman has pleaded with the Presidential press to use its ‘creative imagination’ when interpreting Duterte’s comments. Duterte, elected by an angry Filipino people who were tired of being abused by society’s heartless elite, has not gone up against the oligarchs, rather, the neoliberal policies of previous administrations are for the most part being continued by his government.4

Over the decade prior to Trump’s victory, Steve Bannon developed an intricate multi-media machine into a sophisticated propaganda operation. Bannon identified Trump as being capable of delivering the ‘populist-nationalist idea’, and build a system to support the traditionalist movement to protect American culture. The alt-right coalesced around the Breitbart message – eight years of an African-American president had left whites disenfranchised. Breitbart and the Drudge Report moved views from the fringe into mainstream media via Fox news and Facebook. Breitbart helped focus election coverage on Trump’s immigration and grandiose job-creation rhetoric, and direct attention away from Clinton’s economic message and towards her email scandal. Bannon’s efforts, along with the Russian troll factories, recruited the necessary voting block needed to eke out an Electoral College victory – turned on little more than 100,000 votes in three crucial states that he won: Wisconsin, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Donald Trump harnessed the resentment and sense of victimhood of the Republican Party. Trump came across unceasingly pained, injured and aggrieved: the primaries were unfair, the debates were unfair, the general election was unfair. He gave a voice to that part of America that also feels aggrieved. Trump claimed there was a conspiracy against him supported by ‘fake’ news. Today Trump’s paranoid White House continues to see ‘deep state’ enemies on all sides. He became the representative of the idea of the new whiny right: waning power of whiteness, privilege, patriarchy, access, and the cultured surety that accrues to those in possession of such. Bannon and Trump who want to restrict the overall number of immigrants argue allowing lower-skilled immigrants into the country hurts job prospects and suppresses wages for American-born workers. Trump has staked his future on stoking racial division so that he can emerge as the hero of the ‘victimized’ whites.

By far the most disastrous feature of the neoliberal period has been the huge growth in inequality. How did neoliberalism manage to survive virtually unscathed for so long? There is a neoliberal counter-revolution based on polarization. Trump’s victim politics is a complete fraud, an old trick used by economic elite to keep working-class Americans fighting each other rather than taking on the oligarchs who are ripping them off. Trump and his allies are again stoking racial tensions even as they seek to cut taxes on the rich by shedding affordable health care for everyone else, dismantle protection for workers and consumers, and tear down environmental protections that stop wealthy corporations from poisoning communities. Victim politics is cultivated for a reason – to keep workers distracted from the real causes of economic inequality.

1 Ideas matter…Perpetuating the Neoconservative Agenda Through the Economic Crisis Cycles. (21 May 2012) https://counternormal.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/ideas-matterperpetuating-the-neoconservative-agenda-through-the-economic-crisis-cycles/

2 Cook, Steven. How Erdogan Made Turkey Authoritarian Again (21 July 2016) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/how-erdogan-made-turkey-authoritarian-again/492374/

3 Rozworski, Michael. (16 Nov 2015) Poland’s Iron Consensus https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/poland-october-elections-kaczynski-law-justice-party/

4 Chen, Adrian. When a Populist Demagogue Takes Power. (21 Nov 2016) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/21/when-a-populist-demagogue-takes-power

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Role of Nationalism in Supporting Economic Neoliberalism

Neoliberal (or free market) globalization is merely one type of globalization. The neoliberal variant of globalization is currently dominant causing it to be confused or mistaken with globalization in general. Economic neoliberalism is supportive of economic globalization, but is firmly opposed to political globalization. Economic neoliberalism supports individual freedom, in particular, freedom from market-inhibitory forms of government intervention. However, it supports market-enabling government intervention to protect property rights and enforce contracts. Neoliberals oppose interventions for the purpose of reducing market failures and redistribution of income and wealth. Neoliberals advocate dismantling national policies on most economic issues and to confine as many market-inhibiting taxes and regulatory powers as possible to the state or provincial level where they will be constrained by the need to compete for mobile workers and businesses. This forces jurisdictions to compete for investment by providing the types of neoliberal policies that investors and corporations prefer.

Conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have many projects that support economic neoliberalism. AEI supported a 1980 study on the emerging ‘social cost’ arguments against smoking in support of the tobacco industry, and more recently supports various studies that cast doubt on global warming. More than 20 AEI staffers served in the George W Bush administration. In 2000, the Institute set up its federalism project that produced position papers on American federalism, with particular interest on federal and state business regulations, and the role of the court to promote states to compete for corporate business interests. In 1990 the Institute hired Charles Murray and received the Bradley Foundation support for The Bell Curve. Murray’s work on welfare in Losing Ground was very influential over welfare reform in the 1990s. Murray reintroduced social Darwinism which had been in vogue in mid-19th century into acceptance by the 21st century economic elite.

Neoliberalism has not succeeded in reducing either poverty or inequality. From the perspective  of the international capitalist class it has failed in terms of the system itself. It has not recreated the conditions for capital accumulation which existed during the Great Boom. Above all, it has failed consistently to increase the rate of profit. To the extent that it has intermittently done so, it has not achieved rates comparable to those between 1948 and 1974. Accumulation has increasingly come to rely on increasing productivity on the one hand (making fewer people work harder) and decreasing the share of income going to labour the other (paying workers less in real terms). The suppression of real wage levels in Canada and the US has encouraged the very dependence on borrowing that has now entered crisis. This debt load is not physically sustainable indefinitely.

This debt has become a means for consumers to add to their ‘possessions’, as morality accounts imply. Rather it has been driven by their need to maintain liquidity through loans, mortgages, unsecured credit and the like, precisely to meet the costs of the ultra-commodified world neoliberalism has created. Payment of minimal required is very expensive. But an economy that requires systemic debt to maintain expansion is scarcely a healthy situation. The real success of neoliberalism has been to transfer wealth and resources to the ruling class and its hangers on. However, capitalism can only survive through expanding production, not mere personal enrichment.1

One of the main arguments of the neoliberal era has been centred on the decline of nation states and governments as actors in the economic sphere, replaced by decentralized market networks, multinationals, corporations and a new class of economic elites. The promise of the ‘borderless state’ or ‘the end of the nation state’ has not come to pass, and indeed nationalism and nation states remain in place. While the new economic elite may appear cosmopolitan on the surface, their riches have been amassed with the active assistance of state machines committed to national interests. How does the economic neoliberalism interact with the national political unity of the state? Neil Davidson’s answer: despite the mythology of free competition between capitalists, competition itself drives a self-interested desire on the part of each capitalist to use non-economic means to gain advantage – a function classically given to states on the world stage. If there was a single global state managing all inter-capitalist competition around the world, there would be no ‘outside’ for the capitalist to seek advantage.

Basically states cannot be reduced to such managerial functions within the anarchy of competition. They are also sites of ideological attachment. The drive of competition is always towards the subversion or breaking of rules, yet capitalists in general tend to play within the rules – but conservative think tanks are at work promoting changes to these legal rules and regulations embodied in the nation. Nationalism is not only important to unify local groups of capitalists, but it also helps capital to fragment the working classes. As Luckas puts it, nationalism binds “the individual members of those classes as single individuals as mere ‘citizens’ to an abstract state reigning over and above them.” At one level in the alienated circumstances they face under capitalism, workers seek out a collective consciousness, and national identification can become one spontaneous expression of this when class consciousness becomes anger over falling further behind economically.2

The same disruptive forces of capitalist competition that bring capitalists together within the framework of nations also acts to sharpen exploitation and oppression for the working class, thereby weakening the ideological hold of nationalism as it fails to deliver for them, instead acting as the enforcer of the ruling class interests. In these circumstances the economic elite and the politicians they own consciously work to re-enforce nationalism ideology. Thus neoliberalism pursues pro-capitalist programs which create disruptive changes to society. On the other hand, people want constancy in their lives, which leads them to support a fairly conservative social agenda along with nationalism. Donald Trump promised to govern for all: attacking refugees, providing a narrative on border security that includes a wall, and shops serious action on climate change as damaging to the ‘national interests.’ To do this Trump had to draw on and adapt longstanding national tropes: America keeps losing, the need to make America great (again), I will build a strong military (that we won’t have to use), I will protect your social security.3

Neoliberalism, with its combination of market anarchy and workplace despotism, is also projected as a new world where discipline and conformity in the office or factory are counterbalanced by a potpourri of gratifying and pleasurable consumer choices. It further destabilizes social order by promising and then ‘dashing’ hopes of individual liberation. Here nationalism plays the role of filling the gap that consumerism can never satisfy, providing placebo compensation for the uncertainty and instability of modern life, social cohesion beyond the fragmentation of the marketplace, and encouraging allegiance to the interests of one’s national ideology. As neoliberal capitalism fragments social experience, nationalism becomes ever more important in gluing the working class to their rulers. It tends to reinforce the existing social order and the interests of the ruling elite. The ‘new’ economic policy of the Trump administration is no more than national neoliberalism serving the interest of financial capital and globalized elites in the redistribution of wealth upward. It is necessary to challenge this ideology.

What are the hallmarks of a reform movement? Core values include grassroots democracy, inclusivity, ecological sustainability, and social justice. A key pillar of democracy is the free flow of information between citizens and all spheres of government which requires locally responsible and independent mass media. Grass roots democracy means all citizens have the right to express their views and have the capacity and opportunity to directly participate in environmental, economic, and social decisions. Inclusively is about supporting the rights of all people. Everyone should have the opportunity for personal development and be able to fully participate in society without discrimination. Identity politics is not part of this message. Under ecological sustainability and social justice policies must counter the patterns of human production and consumption in the global economy where driven by the pursuit of economic growth at any cost that have resulted in increased inequality. A more equitable distribution of resources should eliminate poverty.

The economic elite seek to influence election results through various activities that include gerrymandering, obfuscation, such as Trump’s partisan voter fraud commission, and nationalism. Democracy is key to change because the working class, in particular, understands democratic activism to be the most effective tool they have to attack extreme inequality and maintain a check on the power of elites. Reformers need to mobilise the vote. The basis of reform policies is to seek amelioration of the negative effects of capitalism within the bounds of the system and its state. This effort is about social forces advocating greater government intervention in the economy for the purpose of reducing market failures, a more equal distribution of income and wealth, and guaranteeing adequate revenue to fund quality public services. These need to be incorporated as national policies to counter a race to the bottom amongst states or provinces as they attempt to attract or retain economic activity in their jurisdiction.

1 Davidson, Neil. Nationalism and Neoliberalism. http://www.variant.org.uk/32texts/davidson32.html

2 The Curious Marriage of Neoliberalism and Nationalism. (16 Jan 2011) https://left-flank.org/2011/01/16/the-curious-marriage-of-neoliberalism-and-nationalism/

3 Borosage, Robert L. (27 Aug 2015) Trump’s Tropes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/trumps-tropes_b_8048330.html

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Meritocracy Disguises Inequality That Supports A Growing Oligarchy

The idea that the mind plays an active role in structuring reality is called Kant’s Copernican revolution, because like Copernicus who turned astronomy inside-out by claiming the Earth moved around the sun (instead of the other way), Kant argued we must reformulate the way we think – theorizing that objective reality depends on the mind rather than the other way round (compared to Empiricists who held that all ideas, hence the entire mind comes from experience.) Kant claimed the structure of the mind shapes all sensory experience and thought. The mind has an active role in producing our conception of reality by acting as a filter, an organizer, an enhancer. Now it is important to avoid the massive cognitive bubble created by the Internet. This creates a situation where individuals will accept a myth over facts because these myths feed into a deeper truth that we believe about the world. Myths, which are ideas that are believed by many people, but are not true, were created by early civilizations to make sense of the world around them.

The Copernican revolution was a paradigm shift triggered by the publication of the Nicolas Copernicus treatise, the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres. This was a publication of a new view of the world as a heliocentric model, rather than the Earth stationary at the centre of the universe. With this the reassurance of the cosmology of the Middle Ages were gone, and a new view of the world, less secure and comfortable, came into being. The Copernican mode was loaded with Polemic luggage, such as, the planets moving in a circular motion around the sun. The observations of Galileo Gaililei of Venus in 1609 provided proof that Venus could be on the opposite side of the sun – disproving the Ptolemic Theory further. Using astronomer Tycho Brahe’s pre-telescopic observations, Kepler was able to trace out the elliptical patterns of the planets as they orbit the sun. The Copernican Revolution fundamentally changed the way we think about our place in the world.

Isaac Newton combined mathematics of axiomatic proof with the mechanics of physical observation and established a coherent system of verifiable predictions in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). The Age of Reason sought to establish axiomatic philosophy as the foundation of stability. Enlightenment philosophers tend to have a great deal of confidence in humanity’s intellectual power both to achieve systematic knowledge of nature and to serve as an authoritative guide in practical life. The faith of the Enlightenment is that the process of enlightenment of becoming progressively self-directed in thought and action through the awaking of one’s intellectual powers, leads ultimately to a better, more fulfilled human existence. Because the established discourses of the Enlightenment are more or less arbitrary, they can be changed; and because they more or less reflect the interests and values of the powerful, it is necessary to think for oneself, to employ and rely on one’s own intellectual capacities in determining what to believe and how to act.

The Enlightenment occupies a central role in the justification for the movement known as modernism. After the end of World War II Enlightenment tradition re-emerged as a key organizing concept in social and political thought and the history of ideas. Postmodernism is a Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power. In turn, postmodernism-counter enlightenment appeared. Michel Foucault (1926-1984) critiques the tendency of the Enlightenment tradition to explain everything according to a dominant mega-theory, so that everything must fit the master-narrative. He saw truth as more subjective and all disciplines created by elites who control the system. These elites determine, often based on self-interests, the standards of normality. Once one method has been selected over others, alternatives become deviant. This creates tension between the elites and the masses.1

The term metaphor derives from the Greek ‘metaphorá’ which means to transfer the quality of one entity to another. Modernist thinkers describe metaphors as mere ornaments of language and not a constitutive part of language and understanding. Postmodern scholars suggest that metaphors are basic to understanding, and consequently that they are not so much a form of speech but rather a fundamental form of thought. Metaphors can actually function as a constitutive part of communication as well as scientific inquiry. When viewed as a constitutive aspect of language, metaphors actively contribute to our understanding of experience rather than merely being mirrors that reflect reality. Thus postmodern scholars suggest that perceived realities may change as the metaphors used to explain reality change. One of the most dominant metaphors of the past 60 years has been meritocracy. Today it means people earn and realize opportunities due to hard work and commitment to improving oneself.

The economy of the 1950s and 1960s was about an unprecedented rise in middle class jobs: there was more room at the top. In 1958, Michael Young wrote a futuristic novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, a satire on a society stratified by merit. Young coined the term, formed by combining the Latin root “mereō” and the ancient Greek suffix “cracy”, in his essay to describe and ridicule such a society. The story was intended as a warning: if society was viewed as perfectly meritocratic, then disproportionate awards are showered on the elite, and contempt is increasingly shown to those on the bottom. Young mocked the existing education system in Britain, arguing it was simply a centuries-old class system in sheep’s clothing. Typically lacking the best schools, underprivileged children routinely did badly on exams – the standardized intelligence tests that consequently determined their social position.2

Although all concepts are metaphors invented by humans (created by common agreement to facilitate ease of communication), Nietzsche observes, humans forget this fact after inventing them, and come to believe they are ‘true’ and correspond to reality.3 In the 1980s the word meritocracy was being used approvingly by a range of new-right think tanks to describe their version of a world of extreme income difference and high social mobility. From the efforts of these writers the word flipped its meaning. Meritocracy was adopted into the English language with none of the negative connotations. Neoliberals have promoted meritocracy as an Utopian system of fairness – but ‘merit’ has been manipulated to privilege the wealthy. For the past forty years meritocracy has been used as a smokescreen to justify policies that increase inequality. Donald Trump won the 2016 election with this proposed solution to inequality: meritocracy, capitalism and nationalism.

When did the change in beliefs from theories of 1500 to theories of 1700 cause a change in reality (with planets beginning to orbit the sun)? When did the meaning of meritocracy change between 1950s and 2000s (with social systems rewarding through wealth)? Do we construct realities? The distinction is between humanly-constructed realities (theories, paradigms, convictions) and human-independent realities (electrons, planets, social privilege). A humanly constructed theory claims to describe and/or explain reality. When we make claims based on a theory we are making truth-claims about the reality of what is happening now, or did happen in the past. Our truth-claims are true if they are correct, if they correspond to the truth of what actually is happening (or did happen) in reality; and our truth-claims are false if they are wrong, if they do not match the truth defined by reality.

Did reality change? Did the motion of planets change from earth-centred (in 1500) to sun-centred (in 1700)? Did meritocracy change from a social system in which the economic elite is favoured, (in 1958) to social system in which everyone is favoured (in 2008)? No. Did the truth change? No. Because truth is determined by reality – what was true in 1500 (the earth and the planets really moved around the sun) was also true in 1700, and what was true in 1958 (the social system favoured the economic elite) was also true in 2008. Did our truth-claims change with respect to planets? Yes. But with the respect to the reality of meritocracy, truth-claims did not change. This discordance is reflected in the population. This creates what Guy Standing in 2011 called the dangerous class – a group working below their capabilities precisely because they have no other option. This group is susceptible to rhetoric from politicians with simplistic solutions, which results in the election of politicians like Donald Trump.

The social and political contexts of meritocracy, which have been created through forty years of neoliberalism, now justify policies that increase inequality. Meritocracy has become a rationalization that allows the rich to abrogate any sense of duty to those less fortunate. In fact, meritocracy serves to justify the status quo – perpetuate the existing upper class – merit can always be defined as what results in success, thus whoever is successful can be portrayed as deserving success, rather than success being predicted by criteria for merit. If wealth accrued based on merit, one would expect wealth to be distributed according to the bell-shaped curve, which it is not. Meritocracy supports a growing oligarchy as demonstrated by the growth in income inequality and a reduction in economic mobility. Meritocracy is sustaining a myth that disguises economic inequality in North America and prevents progressive government initiatives to address the issue. The answer is a more equitable tax system in Canada and the US to distribute wealth more evenly.

1 Age of Enlightenment: Postmodernism http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Age_of_Enlightenment

2 Fox, Margalit. (25 Jan 2002) Michael Young, 86, Scholar; Coined, Mocked ‘Meritocracy’. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/world/michael-young-86-scholar-coined-mocked-meritocracy.html

3 Paul, Glenn. (Dec 2004) The Politics of Truth: Power of Nietzsche’s Epistemology. Political Research Quarterly 57(4):576b doi 10.2307/3219819

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Fragile States and Failed Policies: The Need For Inclusive Institutions

Today 50% of African countries are identified in studies as ‘fragile’ or ‘failed’ states. Since 9/11 concern has grown that not only were these failed states incapable of following the development path laid out by the neoliberal political agenda but – according to the most pessimistic voices – they might even come to destabilize the international system. This thinking led to the promotion of the concept of good governance to remedy that trend. This meant international policies designed specifically for failed states attempt to fit African states into parameters of the modern state, thus rebuilding them in their image. However, globalization constrains and conditions the state system, thus encourages the formation of states as well as their collapse. The institutionalization of structures at the global level impinges on the power that previously belonged to the nation state. This creates or aggravates conflicts within the nation state.

How does the concept of good governance impact many African states? The concept acts in defense of certain political formulae – one that perpetuates the image of these societies as passive vectors rather than political actors. Good governance processes and institutions should produce results that the people understand, and are in the best interests of the people. On the other hand, under neoliberal policies the state is to provide the appropriate environment for the market to operate optimally. But markets are competition-based institutions in which the domain of the state is reduced, while workers are subjected to stifling regime assessment and monitoring. Under the neoliberal theory that people can exercise choice through spending, the result is disempowerment of the poor and middle class. In the typical crisis of a failed state, the threat comes to the system because of the social conditions, which characterize it, and the types of conflicts that it generates.

Neoliberalism not only made the continent’s economic marginalization more acute, but also perpetuated policies of clientelism. Neoliberalism focused on the job of transferring policies to support programs designed to fit the standard notions of the state. However, there are other variables of international nature – the consolidation of certain elites in government due to their ties to the international community, or the opaque participation of multinationals in the running of the economy that affect policies. Consequences of such polices is the international community’s state-building record in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan and Somalia, all of which not only remain a far cry from achieving the Millennium Development Goals, but continue to feature amongst the list of top ten ‘failed states’. In 2016, the largest number of refugees from any single country coming to the US came from the DRC. Until there is a shift of focus to state and society, or on inclusive institutions – public access to information, public access to decision-making processes and access to justice – the present neoliberal response will continue to support the status quo in fragile states.

This consequence of the appearance of fragile state raises concern over: neoliberalism under US hegemony, the social significance of the new rules that it imposes, and its social costs and associated risks. The issues become the lack of understanding of how failed states work, and unintended consequences of international policies that may even have the opposite effect of that desired. The West’s military operation in Libya in 2011 – the spill-over effects of which are well-known to have contributed to the crisis in Mali – did little to spark greater self-scrutiny towards past policies. Precipitous in nature and officially restricted to a few short-term military objectives, the intervention in West Africa is likely to contribute to Mali’s political fragmentation, enhance its institutional ‘fragilization’, and spark a regional conflagration, than it is to bring about peace, prosperity and stability.

State fragility, with its repercussions on national development and international security, remains one of today’s most pressing global public policy challenges, partly because this phenomenon is considered the source of many of the world’s most serious problems. While foreign military contingents have incrementally left these war zones, ‘state fragility’ is certain to stay, both, in these polities (processes of civil government) and the world at large, partly because, ‘from a historical perspective, much of the developing world today is characterised by states in the process of formation’ – a process that is inherently prone to crises, conflict and fragility.

Having conceived of ‘fragile states’ as pathologic deviations from the contemporary molding of Western countries, it has invariably been neoliberal interpretations of the state that have guided the international community’s handbooks on how to ‘fix’ fragile states, even though ‘the inadequacies of neoliberalism have spawned a wide­spread questioning of this dominant worldview.’ We need to seek to rebuild the state while encouraging society to participate in the process – centered on social rights and civil rights. This means seeking domestic security in order to establish the internal and international stability necessary for market prosperity. The problem with this policy is the concentration of power in a few hands and class inequality, which leaves an abstract formula of the role in which civil society is expected to play as a counterweight to the state.

Furthermore, current approaches towards state building continue to commit the mistake of reducing state-building endeavours to questions of institutional capacity. Consequently, the international community’s agenda puts technical issues concerned with capacity building at centre stage. Yet, as governance is about the relationship between the state and society and as it is in the realm of ideas and sentiments that the fate of states is primarily determined, there is a need for ‘bringing the nation back in’. States are not hollow social constructs, but are intimately intertwined with the formation of national identities. Thus, the assertion that the goal of rebuilding societies should not be to impose common identities on deeply divided peoples but to organize states that can administer their territories and allow people to live together despite differences needs to be rejected, as this wrongly suggests that it is possible to ‘organize states’ while leaving the ‘identity’ of their populations untouched.1

The West seems to unquestionably continue to trust its ‘tried and tested’ policy: a cocktail made up of military intervention and neoliberal prescriptions for reconstruction, which entail a diktat of democracy, gender equality and free market mechanisms, amongst others. While all these neoliberal elements of a pluralist society might be desirable in and of themselves, the dominant actors of the international community need to appreciate that what is required to sustain states should not be confused with what is required to initiate them. States and societies need to find the space to reformulate their own kind of political organization, and they consequently require international policies that try to go beyond standard notions of the state.

Neoliberalism broadly describes a regulatory system, encompassing economic policies emphasizing market deregulation, privatization, and an altered role for the state. Neoliberals emphasize that the role of government is to create a good business climate rather than look after the needs and the well-being of the population at large. The fact that there is little international regulation has dire consequences for the safety of the people and the environment. Multinational corporations are responsible for the removal of traditional government accountability to a fixed population for much of politics. This creates a lack of ability of those affected by decisions to protect their legitimate rights and interests. The new corporate values of globalization normalize through a doublespeak, selling commercialization and free market choices as democracy while redefining the shape and functions of the state.

The UN said recently that the world is facing its worst humanitarian crisis since the end of World War II, with 20 million people in Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria facing starvation and famine. On the other hand, President Donald Trump is seeking to reduce his country’s contribution to United Nations programmes, as part of cuts to funding of US diplomacy and foreign aid in his administration’s budget proposal. Already, the US has cut funds used to finance access to birth control, abortion and sex education for women in developing nations. After Trump cut U.S. funding for such services, Melinda Gates notes, “Enabling women to time and space their pregnancies and providing access to treatment and prevention of infectious diseases is lifesaving work. It saves moms’ lives and it saves babies’ lives…”

Poverty is at the heart of Africa’s problems. One of the key consequences of Africa’s economic stagnation is how much income inequality has increased. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa is in the World Bank’s lowest income category of less than $765 Gross National Income (GNI) per person per year. In Sub-Saharan Africa, per capita GDP is now less than it was in 1974, having declined over 11 percent. Young people recognize the economic impediments they face stem from the way political power is exercised and monopolized by a narrow elite. In Africa poor people are trapped within extractive economic institutions. Western governments don’t like cutting their ties to dictators who open doors for international business, or help their geopolitical agendas. This can only be reversed by using financial and diplomatic clout to help create room for inclusive institutions to grow.

Rethinking current approaches towards fragile states is not only necessary to facilitate political stability and economic development, but also to curb the challenge of international terrorism, which is believed to thrive in states that experience fragility. Thus, rather than subjecting policies towards fragile states to a doomed ‘war on terror’ – a war that has been ineffective at best – state fragility should be taken seriously in its own right, if we want to prevent a country like Mali from becoming another Somalia. Aid can help. But it needs to be used in such a way as to help civil society mobilize collectively, find a voice and get involved with decision-making. It needs to help manufacture inclusive institutions. David Cameron explained, “long-term development through aid only happens if there is a ‘golden thread’ of stable government, lack of corruption, human rights, the rule of law and transparent information.”2

1 Balthasar, Dominik. (29 Jan 2013) ‘Fragile States’ and ‘Failed Policies’: Two Global Public Policy Challenges at Eye Level .http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/29/01/2013/gg2022-–-‘fragile-states’-and-‘failed-policies’-two-global-public-policy-challenges-

2 Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (22 April 2017) Why foreign aid fails – and how to really help Africa https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/9824422/

Posted in Global Economy | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Reality of Informational Neoliberalism And Diminishing Truth

It has been argued that reality is not an absolute, that each individual has his own perception of reality. Reality is the state of things, as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. “When truth is blurred by lies and misinformation, perception becomes reality and all is lost.” What people perceive is usually what they believe, and this is based on what they hear, see and think. John Locke observed, “One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant.” The reality is that one must be willing to experience the discomfort often associated with truth if his objective is to achieve positive, long-term results.

Locke’s views on the fundamental nature of reality and our limited ability to grasp it include: we know that there is an external world but not much, if anything, about the nature of the world itself. According to Locke the only thing we perceive are ideas. As the correct answer to the question, Locke proposed the fundamental principle of empiricism: all of our knowledge and ideas arise from experience. Knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. Thus, ideas come to us via our senses, which in turn can be turned into new ideas via reflection. External world skepticism is the view that you can’t know anything about the external world – you can only know about the internal world of your own mind. The precondition of thought, is political freedom, which involves a system of checks and balances.

Informationalism is an ideology that claims information has power when disseminated. Informationalism as part of the ‘information age’ played an important role in the global political economy in laying the groundwork for neoliberal ideology and globalization. These theories have painted utopian visions of the rise of knowledge-based economies embedded in globe-spanning telecommunication networks. The information-age theories have helped form the core of the neoliberal project, as they obscure behind a veil of teleological inevitability and technological determinism the political transformations which make global neoliberalism possible. This represents the rise of information as a weapon. Information can now be used as a form of web-based terrorism – as a platform to initiate propagandist attacks. This played out recently in the 2016 American election. Russian troll factories spread pro-Trump propaganda by setting up thousands of fake Twitter and Facebook accounts and shaping voter opinions through micro-targeting.

Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society’s technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values. Along with the eroding national sovereignty over trade and labour laws, capital flows, and fiscal and monetary policy, the ascent of informational neoliberalism has served to undermine traditional citizenship in favour of market discipline and neoliberal hegemony. Paradoxically then, as an organic ideology ‘informational neoliberalism’ has been central to notions of globalization while it has undermined traditional modes of citizenship, most importantly the right to economic and political self-determination. The resurgence of capitalism and the subsequent rejuvenation of global class power since the 1970s are best described neither by technological determinism nor a self-propelled reorganization of capitalism, but rather through the hegemonic consolidation of two ideologies – informationalism and neoliberalism.1

Misinformation comes in many guises. It can come from social media or from works of fiction (if you now wonder whether people really extract information from fiction, think about the fact that fiction author Michael Crichton has been invited as a climate “expert” to testify before a US Senate committee). Sometimes misinformation is spread deliberately: claims that there is no evidence that humans are causing climate change have a clear aim and purpose. Unfortunately, the media often contribute to the spread of unsubstantiated myths because of a focus on “balanced” coverage. Alas, the “two sides of a story” don’t always deserve equal space because of an imbalance in evidence. Neoliberalism is supported by Adam Smith’s theory of economic determinism. Adam Smith tried to achieve in economics what Newton had achieved in physics. Smith’s concept of the invisible hand is an indirect intervention to counter instability of human reason to achieve social harmony by itself.

The now common idea that we can “check facts ourselves” is at best an illusion. The fact we can “look things up on the net” can give people the impression they understand something when in fact they are overlooking important domain-specific details, or are trusting the wrong sources. This ultimately leads to a decline in trust in true experts. It’s easy to get bogged down in a misinformation “echo chamber”. The same misinformation can appear on many linked websites, which may lead to the impression of corroborative evidence from multiple independent sources, when it is not. Another approach is being a skeptic in the true sense of the word – critically assessing evidence and questioning people’s motives – requires effort and time, and often we lack one or both of these. However, when people’s beliefs are very strong, these beliefs will bias information processing and lead to what is known as “motivated reasoning”. People with strong beliefs and motivations will preferentially attend to and interpret information in a way that supports their beliefs.

Most postmodernists agree that the Enlightenment project – with its lofty claims about the idea of universal truth and our ability to discover it – was a failure. Rather, postmodernists stress that no one possesses a “view from nowhere,” a “God’s eye” view of the world. We are all, alas, trapped within a certain perspective, a perspective informed by our own interests, beliefs, goals and aspirations. One cannot therefore speak of universal truth; truth is necessarily local, relativized to specific individuals or communities. We can no longer speak of facts – since we have no way of accessing the world independently of our own perspective. Postmodernism, claim the neoliberals, is a left-wing theory promoted to liberate oppressed communities from the dominance of the ruling classes. This was to prevent “hegemonic” communities – Corporate America, government, Big Science – from having the power to force their version of the truth on everyone else.

We are indebted to Donald Trump for bursting the informational neoliberal bubble. Trump has focused us on the real issue of the day. He is teaching us all about the power of dissemination of (mis)information. Mr. Trump and his surrogates have signaled that they intend to counter the media’s version of truth with their own alternative facts, the “truth” from their perspective. Trump’s election unmasked the diminishing truth in social media and the fraud of neoliberal economic change. His new economic vision was nothing more than national neoliberalism. He attracted a dispossessed and disenfranchised white, male working class, unsatisfied with neoliberal globalization and the insecurity and hardship it has unleashed, to support him. Once elected, he pivoted 180 degrees and appointed the wealthiest cabinet ever who are quite comfortable in bed with powerful multinational corporations with economic and political might that rivals that of many national governments. In other words, Trump’s election does not mean the end of neoliberalism.

There will be fusion of state and market interests under this emerging national neoliberalism. However, there will not be the appearance of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather domestic privatization initiatives, appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community’s need for protection abroad will bring them closer. We now live in a world where truth is defined by those who can afford to spend the most money to have their version of it advertised widely. Nietzsche insists that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and argues instead that all thinking and perception comes from a particular perspective, and that different perspectives will produce different views of truth. There are only these views of truth, or interpretations; there is no objective reality beneath them, no independent standard that they refer to. Instead of using truth as the highest standard of value, Nietzsche argues, individuals need to develop their own powers of judgment and to produce ideas and ethics that will strengthen them and help them to live.

Paid trolls and ‘think tanks’ disseminate information supporting the oligarchs. The value accumulated by social media companies generally occurs in financial markets, rather than in direct commodity exchange. The stable class structure underlying Keynesian industrialism – with its secure working classes and its loyal middle classes – is now replaced by a social Darwinism survival of the fittest dictated by neoliberal informationalism where multitudes of insecure workers employed in cognitive sectors produce value to be siphoned off to the world’s financial marketplaces. George Orwell observed, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” We desperately need a balanced view. The challenge is to realize enduring ideals by means of new practices and reformed institutions in response to changing historical conditions. Without principles, we become enslaved to this or that determinist theory of history. In addition, without a theory of historical challenges and opportunities, the reality is we become subject to outmoded practices and anachronistic institutions such as neoliberalism.

1 Neubauer, Robert. Neoliberalism in the Information Age, or Vice Versa? Global Citizenship, Technology, and Hegemonic Ideology. tripleC 9(2): 195-230, 2011. http://www.triple-c.at

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Debate on the Science Behind Economic Choices

The choices you face in the ordinary business of your life – buying clothing, deciding what to eat, or seeking a job all involve considerations of cost, scarcity, and tradeoffs with other options – are economic decisions. The Enlightenment of the 18th century opened up the floodgates of new ideas, new thoughts on everything from the way man saw government and his role in society to the way scientific ideas were conceived. During this period one of the major desires of the philosopher was to discover the underlying laws that govern society. David Hume and Adam Smith developed an empiricist doctrine of knowledge believing Newton’s theory of gravity applied to the human sciences. The choices you face in the ordinary business of your life – individual choices conscious or otherwise – fit into a higher order affecting not only those who make them but also their families, communities, countries, and even the world.

Francis Hutchison (1694-1745) was a proponent of moral sense theory, the position that human beings make moral judgements using their sentiments rather than ‘rational’ capacity. According to Hutchison a sense of unity among human beings allows for the possibility of other-oriented actions even though individuals are motivated by self-interest. The moral sense, which is a form of benevolence, elects feelings of approval in those witnessing moral acts. Hutcheson opposed ethical egoism, the notion that individuals ought to be motivated by their own interest ultimately, even when they cooperate with others in a common project. Adam Smith, Hutchison’s most famous student, wrote that moral behavior is, at core, the human capacity of sympathy, the faculty, that in Hume’s account, allows us to approve of others character and “to forget our own interests in or judgements” and to consider those whom ”we meet with in society and conversation” who “are not placed in the same situation, and have not the same interest with ourselves.”1

The Scottish philosophers, David Hume (1711-1776) and Adam Smith (1723-1790) were good friends looking for natural causes of the phenomena that we describe as moral. Their empiricist theories were based on experience and observation. The ‘moral subjects’ that Hume referenced in his book meant the human sciences in general, of which ethics is one branch. According to Hume we must restrict ourselves to what we can observe in the human sciences. In his writings, Smith explored political economy, essentially the laws governing human behavior. In a commercial society he emphasizes that economics is only one component of the human condition. The moral character of a people is the ultimate measure of their humanity. There is a relationship between morality and economics, and some of our actions ought to be motivated by a sense of duty. At the centre of Smith’s writings was the attempt to articulate the laws of human behavior.

Adam Smith believed that human activities were governed by discoverable principles in the same way that Newton argued that motion was explainable through principles. For Smith self-interest and competition are very important economic forces. Self-interest is the motivator of economic activity. Competition is the regulator of economic activity. Smith argued that people have a natural drive to improve their own lives. This self-interest he suggested propels markets to satisfy individual demands by producing the goods and services that people want. He called this the invisible hand – transforming the individual’s pursuit of gain into the general utility of society. He suggested that competition between businesses prevents exploitation of consumers by ensuring fair prices and quality products, encouraging constant economic innovation and satisfying customer demand. In short, competition keeps everyone honest, because consumers treated unfairly by one business can always patronize another instead.

The philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was a social Darwinist of the late nineteenth century who used Darwin’s theory of evolution to justify extreme laissez-faire capitalism as natural and right in the sense that free competition ensured the survival of the fittest. Spencer believed that human society reflects the same evolutionary principles as biological organisms do in their development. Spencer’s philosophy provided a foundation for an integrated, scientific approach to individualism. In particular, his emphasis on science caught the attention of anarchists of his day as progress was defined as ‘that form of society in which government will be reduced to the smallest amount possible, and freedom increased to the greatest amount.’ Spencer believed that the rich and the powerful become so because they are better suited to the social and economic culture of the time. In turn, the robber barons embraced his theory as it provided the necessary ‘science’ to support long workdays, low wages and child labour.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, existing economic theory was unable either to explain the causes of the severe worldwide economic collapse or to provide an adequate public policy solution to jump-start production and employment. British economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking that overturned the then-prevailing idea that free markets would automatically provide full employment. Private sector decisions can sometimes lead to adverse macroeconomic outcomes, such as reduction in consumer spending during a recession. These market failures sometimes call for active policies by the government, such as a fiscal stimulus package. What distinguishes Keynesians from other economists is their belief in activist policies to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most important of all economic problems. Therefore, Keynesian economics supports a mixed economy guided mainly by the private sector but partly operated by the government.2

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated letting businesses flourish, since their profits will ultimately trickle down to lower-income individuals and the rest of the economy. The trickle down economic theory was rebranded in the 1970s to an ideology – supply side economics – the doctrine that tax cuts could be had for free (incentive effects would generate new activity hence more revenue) without causing budget deficits. Its creators never believed supply side economics worked – it was an ideology that was created to unite the right. In 1984, Charles Murray published Losing Ground. It was described by the New York Times Review of Books as a “persuasive . . . new variation on social Darwinism.” Its central thesis was that all government welfare programs should be abolished, supposedly because welfare hurt the very people it was intended to help by “rewarding bad behavior” such as “illegitimate babies.” Murray also called for ending food stamp programs. Murray’s work was used as the ‘science’ behind an ideology that supports slashing social programs.3

Postmodernism introduces the attitude of skepticism or distrust towards ideology and various tenets of universalism. Supporters believe knowledge and truth are products of social, historical and political discourses or interpretations, and therefore contextual or socially constructed. Postmodernism is still alive in economic theory – economic truths are socially constructed. Herbert Marcuse notes the working class is no longer the agent of social change. In the system today there is no longer a separation between the rich and the poor. At the centre are the workers who pay taxes for a system of ‘handouts and entitlements’ against the excluded who missed the benefits of 1960s and 1970s. These two fractions of the proletariat redefine the social question. Neoliberal capitalism has enlisted these two fractions of the proletariat into destructive competition against each other. The clash is no longer between labour and the privileged elite rather between a proletariat that pays taxes with an underclass that relies on a system of handouts and entitlements.4

The Enlightenment writers were concerned about the inequality in the existing system and introduced questioning and critical thinking to replace the dead weight of tradition and challenge the blind faith in institutions. The philosophers wanted to understand the rationale behind inequality, were particularly interested if there were natural reasons for it, or if inequality came wholly from social conventions. Once the reality of the consequences of the economic debacle of 2008 set in that pleasant retirement and the promise that one’s children would have more choices and a better life than their parents had been destroyed, many became angry and disillusioned. For the first time in history middle class children will likely end up poorer than their parents. In the second decade of the 21st century the middle class in Canada and the US has been stripped of jobs, income and security. It is about the rise of business power and the decline of labour power (as part of the era of globalization) along with the attacks of the right on the welfare state – with a consequent rapid rise in social, income and health inequalities.

We need to refocus: the symptoms of the Great Depression that Keynes correctly diagnosed are back, though fortunately on a smaller scale: chronic unemployment, deflation, currency wars, and beggar-thy-neighbor economic policies. The treatment includes preventing a deepening recession with a temporary program of increased government spending. Democracy is embraced because the working class, in particular, understands democratic activism to be the most effective tool they have to attack extreme inequality and maintain a check on the power of elites. If citizens only play a passive role then the real politics are shaped in private by interaction between elected governments and economic elites – elites who are not interested in the welfare of the classes beneath them. These choices would include electing candidates identifying policies to end big money’s grip on politics, an issue that lies at the core of the debate on the economy.

1 Adam Smith. http://www.iep.utm.edu/smith/

2 John Maynard Keynes http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Keynes.html

3 The Social Contract of the Neoliberals (23 Jul 2016) http://questioningandskepticism.com/social-contract-neoliberals/

4 Why Co-operation is Necessary. (15 Jan 2017) http://questioningandskepticism.com/co-operation-necessary/

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In A Post-truth Era Is Truth A Necessary Condition for Society to Change?

In this era of trickle-down economics with the increasing income disparity between the wealthy and the rest of society, a polarized debate has ensued on how to address the issue. Rousseau insisted that men must bear the moral responsibility for the kind of society they construct or accept. The purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us – through the general will – created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Today extreme individualism, social disintegration and amoral relativism create a climate where men elevate their personal interests above the common good. The legacy of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement has been to dare to challenge the system, identifying extreme inequality as the hallmark of a dysfunctional economy, and highlight the failure of the legislators to protect 99% of the people. Today where does the middle class turn for answers for change to address the increasing income disparity in society?

Rousseau makes his main objective the emancipation of man from the conflicts, corruption and uncertainties of society. He saw the political community as the best means of effecting such liberation. Rousseau’s community is indistinguishable from the state. His idea of the ‘general will’ is the will of the political organization, which he constructs as an entity with a life of its own and apart from the individual members of which it is constructed. The general will aims at the common good – what is best for the state as a whole. As societies began to form, the division of labour parallels the beginning of moral inequality. To control tensions the rich trick the poor into creating a political society. The poor believe that this creation will secure their freedom and safety, but in fact, merely fixes the relations of domination that existed before, creating laws to establish inequality.

Essentially the people allow the government to have power over them; they consent to be governed. In return the government promises to protect the rights of the people. Rousseau believes government and societies are not devised to satisfy desires we antecedently have, rather they are brought into existence by the actions of people who deliberately act to create institutions and practices to satisfy their wants. Social change is an effect of human action, but not the intended effect, rather the unintended by-product that results from the sum total of human actions. Social institutions are actually the problem as they hold established ways of acting and thinking on people. Moral inequalities are characterized by the existence of different classes or the domination and exploitation of some people by others. In a state where the vulgarities of private interest prevail over the common interests of the collective, the will of all can be quite different from the general will.

Nietzsche contended that the individual must decide which situations are to count as moral situations. Existentialists believe that personal experience and acting on one’s own convictions are essential to arriving at the truth, and that the understanding of a situation is superior to that of a detached, objective observer. Nietzsche observes, “truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all…”1

Truth is sometimes a condition of life, but the value of truth is not necessarily easy to obtain. What is the value of truth over falsehood? Many now accept there is no need for truth at all times in all occasions. In fact, an untruth can indeed be a necessary condition of life. The fact that a belief is false is not and has not been a reason for people to abandon it, rather beliefs are abandoned based on whether they serve the goals of preserving and enhancing human life. So the debate or question is based not upon distinguishing what is true from what is false, but rather what is life-enhancing, and what is life-destroying. Using these definitions, then what people in society usually call truth has more to do with social conventions than reality.2 Nietzsche observes, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

A paradigm is our perception of reality, our view of the world. It is our interpretation of events based on previous teaching we have received. Kuhn denied that science is constantly approaching the truth. Kuhn observed, “each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent … no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines…” In the 1970s the monetarists sought to resurrect the pre-Keynesian view that market economies are inherently stable in the absence of major unexpected fluctuations in the money supply. Because of this belief in the stability of the free market economics, active demand management (by increasing government spending) was believed unnecessary and indeed likely to be harmful. This paradigm did not solve all the problems it defines, for example, the failure of a pure monetary policy to stimulate the economy in 2001-2003.

Change introduced during the Reagan administration created a paradigm shift in the perception of how the economy should be managed. The initial supply side economics was never believed by its creators; it was promoted as a credible theory in order to create a political doctrine to unite the right. Eventually supply side economics was amalgamated with the ‘starve the beast’ theory. Starve the beast was used simply to unite the Republican Party, as reducing taxes was politically popular. Then this dogma of minimal government and minimal regulation was rebranded as trickle down economics – the doctrine that tax cuts could be had for free (incentive effects would generate new activity hence more revenue) without causing budget deficits. Profits will ultimately trickle down to the bottom indirectly benefiting those who do not directly benefit from the policy changes. Kuhn also noted that a paradigm wouldn’t give way until there is a new one to replace it.

We are aware that global corporation disinformation programs perfected by the tobacco industry spew various amounts of disinformation into the system. This includes the climate change denial tactics of the fossil fuel industry by introducing manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence, setting up so called independent front organizations to publically promote its desired message. They cherry pick scientific spokespeople whose interpretations of the peer-reviewed literature suggest to the media and the public that the debate amongst scientists continues, and the results are not definitive. Industries sponsor sophisticated research activities that include both funding of established research institutions, as well as funding of advocacy and ideological organizations to conduct disinformation campaigns – leaving public and law makers confused. With the election of Donald Trump we now have a better understanding of the process and the scope of the deliberate misinformation programs funded by the oligarchs.

We are in debt to Donald Trump for exposing the ugly network of lies that Rousseau predicted that creates the society in which we live. He pulled back the curtain on the metaphor of the invisible hand exposing the oligarchy that is responsible for the increasing economic inequality between the wealthy and the rest of society. The ideology of neoliberalism drives the social agenda and economic goals of the economic elites. Trump also illustrated how emotion drives decisions – facts are now secondary – how politicians promise change to get elected, then once elected do an about turn and cater to corporate money. Trump ushered in the post-truth era in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts. Now that it is no longer necessary to debate what is true from what is false; we can now focus on distinguishing what is life-enhancing, and what is life-destroying.

We turn to life-enhancing actions: This includes the freedom for everyone to reach their full potential – the opportunities one has to reach his or her potential is the most important measure of freedom. The OWS protesters provide the necessary truth to begin the process of replacing the existing economic paradigm – a government controlled by corporate money and the growing income gap between the very wealthy and the rest of society. We must not give up our freedom and allow our lives to be governed by ideology that limits our opportunities. It is necessary to challenge the status quo of neoliberalism with its causal determinism, and introduce changes such as progressive taxation that includes eliminating special tax breaks designed for the rich, and redistribute wealth more evenly. The relevant consequence of this change is the freedom that optimizes the human experience allowing individuals opportunities to reach their full potential in society.

1 The Perspectives of Nietzsche: Truth and Knowledge. http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/ntruth.html

2 Cline, Austin. (17 March 2017) Nietzsche, Truth, and Untruth: Evaluating Whether Truth is Better than Untruth. https://www.thoughtco.com/nietzsche-truth-and-untruth-250548

 

 

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment