We Need to Replace the Three Poisons of Neoliberalism

Posted on March 1, 2020 by greg

Against the idea that neoliberalism lacks a moral core, let us turn to ideas that were developed during the Iron Age. Buddha defined the three roots of evil or poisons as: greed, hatred and delusion. Greed is also passion. Hatred is also ill will, anger and aggression. Ignorance covers indifference – this enables people to prioritize their pleasure over the suffering of millions of others. If Buddha was correct that greed, ill will and delusion are causes of our suffering and we have institutionalized them; these are matters of deep and urgent concern. Present power elites and institutions have shown themselves incapable of addressing the various crisis that now threaten humanity and the future of the biosphere. It has become obvious that those elites are themselves a large part of the problem and that the solution needs to come from somewhere else. Individual “awakening” is not enough, we require a “social” awakening. Solutions need to be worked at to overcome these poisons dominating society.

What you feel matters, what you do with your feelings even more. Living your life with greed, anger and ignorance have consequences – these emotions influence you in overt and subtle ways – down a path of unhappiness. The neoliberal project is founded on – and acts upon – the assumption that the average citizen is too confused and ignorant to really know what’s best for society or themselves. With respect to “fake news”, the common practices of social media “sharing” constitute an emerging practice that makes one an especially favorable target for neoliberal strategies of social control. A willful hostility toward established knowledge has emerged on both sides of the political spectrum, one in which every opinion on any matter is as good as every other. In a curious ruse of history, the neoliberals’ own economics of ignorance has given rise to forms of tribal epistemology in which information asymmetry and distrust of traditional information sources have propelled new forms of bigotry, lies, and fake news that poison the community.

Neoliberalism has institutionalized greed, ill will and delusion. Corporations are legally chartered so that their first responsibility is not to employees or customers nor members of society they operate within, nor the ecosystem on earth, but to their stockholders who with few exceptions are concerned only about return on investment. With respect to institutionalized ill will: Conservatives, expecting the poor to act self-reliantly, feel less personal complicity in the fact of poverty. Conservatives act differently than progressives to the phenomena associated with poverty – their point of view tends to be “mean spirited” or as “blaming the victim”. Considering the institutionalized delusion of neoliberalism: Democracy requires an activist press, to expose abuse and discuss political issues. However, major media have become profit-making institutions whose bottom-line is advertising revenue, their main concern is to do whatever maximizes those profits. It is never in their own interest to question the grip of consumerism.  

Today everyone is angry, and this rage is expressed in many forms – Hindu nationalism, fascism, the Christian right, anarchic violence and others. The Brexit referendum campaign – just like the U.S. election – has boiled with populist anger, fear-mongering by politicians, hostility towards distant political elites and resurgent nationalism, and exposed a visceral feeling in the electorate that ordinary voters have lost control of the politics that shape their own lives. But nationalism is, more than ever before, a mystification, if not a dangerous fraud with its promise of making a country ‘great again’ and its demonization of the ‘other’; it conceals the real conditions of existence, and the true origins of suffering, even as it seeks to replicate the comforting balm of transcendental ideals within a bleak earthly horizon. Its political resurgence shows resentment – in this case, of people who feel left behind by the globalized economy.

The historian Jennifer Burns has this wonderful insight when she describes Ayn Rand as ‘the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right’ – justifying a certain picture of the world is learned at a very early age, that leads them down the path to narcissism. Because the current culture gives them just enough to behave in ways that the neoliberals describe as being the ideal entrepreneur of the self, confusing freedom with imaginary lack of constraint, and so on and so forth. No one has to read Foucault. Just remember watching The Apprentice, or spend a little time on Facebook. Philip Mirowski traces the origins of neoliberalism to Friedrich Hayek and a European thought collective called The Mont Pelerin Society, who saw markets as information processors, superior to human reason. When neoliberalism, as a real-world political project, expects ignorance of the masses, then spreading confusion becomes an acceptable mode of operation, and lying is not necessarily a bad thing.1

Rand acolytes were spread throughout the world of business during the 1980s and ’90s, but the tech gurus of Silicon Valley have been an especially rich source of Ayn Rand fandom. At their core, Rand’s philosophies suggest that it’s O.K. to be selfish, greedy, and self-interested, especially in business, and that a win-at-all-costs mentality is just the price of changing the norms of society. Trump is in most ways a Rand villain – a businessman who relies on cronyism and manipulation of government, who advocates interference in so-called “free markets,” who bullies big companies to do his bidding, who doesn’t read. His cabinet and donor lists are full of Rand fans who support neoliberal cruelty. This cruelty, through which feelings of resentment, fear, anger, and loathing are enacted against the weak, who are considered a drain on the worthy. Cracking down on welfare “cheats,” “illegal” immigrants, and homeless “vagrants” can become a form of public satisfaction.

An important part of genuine education is realizing that many of the things we think are natural and inevitable (and therefore should accept) are in fact conditioned (and therefore can be changed). The world doesn’t need to be the way it is; there are other possibilities. The present role of the media is to foreclose most of those possibilities by confining public awareness and discussion within narrow limits. With few exceptions, the world’s developed (or “economized”) societies are now dominated by a power elite composed of governments and large corporations including the major media. People move seamlessly from each of these institutions to the other, because there is little difference in their worldview or goals: primarily economic expansion. Politics remains “the shadow cast by big business over society,” as John Dewey once put it. The role of the media in this unholy alliance is to “normalize” this situation, so that we accept it and continue to perform our required roles, especially the frenzied production and consumption necessary to keep the economy growing.

It’s important to realize that we are not being manipulated by a clever group of powerful people who benefit from manipulating us. Rather, we are being manipulated by a deluded group of powerful people who think they benefit from it – because they buy into the basic illusion that their own well-being is separate from that of other people. They too are victims of their own propaganda, caught up in the webs of collective delusion that include virtually all of us, one of the poisons – ignorance. As the Viennese satirist Karl Kraus once said, “How do wars begin? Politicians tell lies to journalists, then believe what they read in the newspapers.” The same applies to shared fantasies such as the necessity of consumerism and perpetual economic growth, and collective repressions such as denial of impending eco-catastophe.2

The opposite of the ignorance of institutionalized neoliberalism is knowledge or awareness. Of the three passions ignorance is viewed as the worst, inhibiting our ability to follow the path that leads to the cessation of suffering. It would appear that the picture of the ordinary human condition, mired in ignorance and moved by short-term pragmatic goals, precludes such a notion of personal freedom. To repeat, on the psychological level, Shantideva tells us we have no more justification for blaming someone who harms us than for blaming a fire for causing heat or, in another example, for blaming the sky for having clouds. This line of thought reflects the view that all wrongdoing is due to ignorance.3 We must end the corrupt system of money for influence – get big money out of politics. With money comes time, access, and the corruption of representative democracy. The majority of the middle class, even many within the power elite, are ignorant of the fact that this affects their own well-being.

The opposites of the poisons of greed and anger of institutionalized neoliberalism are generosity and compassion or understanding. To counter the greed of neoliberalism it is necessary to introduce a living wage, and invest in affordable, high quality childcare and early education. The answer for compassion comes from a 1996 white paper, “Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around – if we can just figure out how to share.“ In 2009 the President of the UN Assembly argued, “The anti-values of greed, individualism and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion. The objective of our economic and social activity …  should be universal values that underpin our ethical and moral responsibility.”4

1 Podcast (25/Oct/2016) Interchange – Selling Ignorance: Part Two of the Way of Neoliberalism https://wfhb.org/news/interchange-selling-ignorance-part-two-of-the-way-of-neoliberalism/

2 David Loy ( 19 /Nov/2013) The Three Poisons, Institutionalized https://www.huffpost.com/entry/buddhist-three-poisons_b_4293245

3Rick Repetti. BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVES ON FREE WILL: AGENTLESS AGENCY? https://philarchive.org/archive/REPBPO-2

4 Jeff Mowat. (13/Oct/2013) Is Compassion the Antidote for Neoliberalism?  https://bullshit.ist/is-compassion-the-antidote-for-neoliberalism

Posted in Enlightenment | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Unitarian and Social Anarchist Ideas Could Complement One Another

Posted on February 20, 2020 by greg

More and more people are asking why laissez-faire economics does not appear to work, and are questioning the theories that support the free market system. This brings the neoliberal project under scrutiny, including the necessity for less taxes and regulation. This, in turn, makes theories that support laissez-faire capitalism, like objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, suspect. Ayn Rand died in 1980, but her novel, Atlas Shrugged (dubbed the bible of selfishness) sold 140 million copies by 1997. With the market problems of 2008, neoliberal economics has become the main suspect and, as a consequence, objectivism has fallen from its lofty heights. Orlando A. Battista (1917-1995), chemist and writer, noted for both scientific and inspirational themes, claimed, “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” Having recognized the error of neoliberal economic theories in general and the manipulations of the power elite in particular, it is necessary to introduce a new cultural approach to supporting communities.

 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) championed anarchism as the most rational and just means of creating order in society. Among other things, he advocated what he called “mutualism,” an economic practice that disincentivized profit – which, according to him, was a destabilizing force – and argued far ahead of his time for banks with free credit and unions to protect labor. He championed the equilibrium of economic forces. He envisioned mutualism as a system of self-employed workers and co-operatives honestly exchanging goods and services in a market without interest, rent, profit, landlords or capitalists. It aimed to change the state (government), not through social revolution, rather by means of reform – a combination of more just and more efficient economic institutions and pressuring the state from the outside to enact appropriate reforms in support of equality of the individual. Proudhon had endeavored, in his first memoir on property, to demonstrate that the pursuit of equality of conditions is the true principle of right and of government.

Mikhail Bakunin’s ideas produced a coherent defense of individual freedom and its basis in a free society. Bakunin believed “every human being should have the material and moral means to develop his humanity.”  He believed that political freedom without economic equality is a pretense – a fraud, a lie. He believed that real freedom was possible only when economic and social equality existed. Freedom is a product of connection, not isolation. Bakunin insisted it is society which creates individual freedom through social interaction. Equality means social equality such as quality of condition, or equal opportunity. Men deprived of freedom to decide their own future, means they lose the sense of purpose in their life. Some – the economic elite – are cushioned by wealth and privilege from feeling the direct impact of this process, though they too are affected in insidious ways, but the poor and marginalized experience the imposition of the minimal state in a very direct way.

When Ayn Rand developed the ideas around what would become objectivism, she turned to Aristotle for ethics. For Aristotle, moral virtue had to do with feeling, choosing and acting well. This included one being all he could be to fulfil his potential, and living in a way that reached his full potential. To achieve this, self-love was necessary. Aristotle described two types of self-love. For him, self-love was a proper emotion, provided it expressed in love of a virtue and was valuable. Being noble and good promoted the good of the community. The second was the dangerous self-love in which the individual assigned material advantage and pleasure. This was the selfishness driven by individualism, where there was no evident benefit for oneself in helping others. What happens when individuals do not follow the good self-love of Aristotle that includes acting with dignity and not acting on impulses? You get a narcissist like Donald Trump who resists accepting suggestions, thinking they will make him appear weak, and believes others have nothing useful to tell him.

Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman believe in a predestination future of those children whose parents cannot afford to enroll them in high quality private schools, preparing them for higher education. “There will always be a situation in which parents are too poor to educate their children, says Rand, “Those children must rely on the charity or self-interest of others.” According to Rand, while the state should not interfere with its citizens’ life, it also has no obligation towards ‘the good education’ – there is a privilege secured by those who can pay for it. Moreover, she explains, the wealthy are free to decide whether it is in their interest to finance education for the poor as charity which would later serve them: “… it is in the interest of the industrialist to have a an educated work force… Companies run specialized schools to train future employees, not for a mawkish altruistic reason: they need skilled employees.”1

It was as if everyone was asleep and not aware of the risks of derivatives and swaps not being regulated. In October 2008, Alan Greenspan, who has a libertarian point of view of the market, spoke in a congressional hearing room: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.” This was part of the statement that documented that four decades of Ayn Rand’s ideals had let him down. Greenspan had refused regulation of derivatives and swaps in 2002-2004. These instruments were used to insure or cover their trading in subprime mortgages. This inaction allowed the banks to consolidate on one hand and, on the other, run large parts of their business out of the scrutiny of the regulators. Those in the mortgage market were very selfish and their activities were harmful to the community. For many, this meant the dreams of a pleasant retirement and the promise one’s children would have a better life than their parents, have been destroyed.2

The community decides what can be regarded as knowledge, therefore power, and what cannot. Power thus circulates throughout society and both creates and is governed by the accepted local practices and discourses within that particular society. One cannot escape power, Foucault argues, power can only be negotiated and resisted from within a local context, and argues that mechanisms of power would be unable to function unless knowledge apparatuses were created, organized and made to circulate – these knowledge apparatuses are not ideological constructs. Power produces what we believe to be our reality through knowledge, however knowledge is also produced by power, as power cannot exist without the discourses produced within a society; but power also governs the creation of these discourses. Foucault observes 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.

Charles Eddis in his pamphlet What Unitarians Affirm states, “The emphasis on sensible, ethical religion which characterizes Unitarianism goes back to a reform movement of Christians in Italy in the 1530s and 1540s who drew on humanism and enlightened Catholicism of Erasmus as much as on Protestant thought.” The Renaissance called people to look scientifically at the world the way it was, not as they might like to believe that it was, and to develop curiosity and objectivity. Servetus’ book On the Errors of the Trinity, opened up a can of worms that main-line Protestant reformers, Luther, Calvin and Zwingly, had agreed not to open, in other words the Trinity. Main-line Protestantism knew that the Trinity was not in the Bible and had arisen as a theological-philosophical concept, growing out of a political compromise in the year 325 of our Common Era at the Council of Nicaea. However, the Unitarians believe in moral authority but not necessarily the divinity of Jesus; and reject authority and hierarchy. In turn, main-line Protestantism has always tried to push Unitarians out.3

The 1999 battle of Seattle for the most part and the Million Mask March on Guy Fawkes Day were associated with a number of anarchist groups – generally associated with limited outbreaks of violence. There are many different schools of thought within anarchism that are strictly non-violent, and a vast majority of anarchists oppose violence except in extreme circumstances for self-defense. For this discussion we focus on social anarchism. Social anarchist thought emphasizes community and social equality as complementary to autonomy and personal freedom. Most social anarchists recognize the need for education and to create alternatives, but most disagree that this is not enough in itself. The social anarchist school agrees that significant community ownership and management of the economy is required to provide the necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects of life by reducing the influence of the power elite, in whatever form it takes.4

We need to correct the circulating messages and ongoing abuses of the power elite. Social anarchist and Unitarian ideas have the potential to rectify these short comings – relying on a strong focus on being consistent in community values as well as a strong tendency towards critical thinking. A significant part of anarchism is the idea of self-liberation. We must unlearn oppressive axioms instilled on us by the neoliberal project. Just as anarchists wish to create non-hierarchical institutions which satisfy our material needs in place of the oppressive ones, we should be establishing institutions which satisfy our spiritual needs. Unitarianism rejects authority and need for hierarchy, nor the presumption that life be based on competition. Unitarianism rejects predestination while the religious right doctrine of predestination re-enforces laissez-faire which, in turn, supports the legitimacy of neoliberal policies. Anarchist and unitarian ideas would complement one another in their commitment to a better world.5

1 Keynan, Irit  (01/01/2016) IS NEOLIBERALISM CONSISTENT WITH INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY? FRIEDMAN, HAYEK AND RAND ON EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT AND EQUALITY https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311986640_IS_NEOLIBERALISM_CONSISTENT_WITH_INDIVIDUAL_LIBERTY_FRIEDMAN_HAYEK_AND_RAND_ON_EDUCATION_EMPLOYMENT_AND_EQUALITY

2 Greg Horsman (2012) Objectivism Lost and an Age of Disillusionment, Chapter 6.

3 Ray Drennan. (2005) Unitarianism: Where Did We Come From? https://cuc.ca/unitarian-universalism/history/unitarianism-where-did-we-come-from/

4 What types of anarchism are there?  https://www.activism.net/government/AnarchistFAQ/secA3.html

5 Clayton Dewey (2004)  Anarchism and Unitarian Universalism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/clayton-dewey-anarchism-and-unitarian-universalism

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Today’s Social Hierarchy Requires Reframing the Narrative on Inequality

Posted on February 10, 2020 by greg

Social mobility isn’t actually randomly distributed across society; it’s actually concentrated in a particular subgroup, and in particular it’s concentrated among those who are already fairly high up in the hierarchy. Social mobility, or movement up or down the social hierarchy, is a major characteristic of the class system. Health and wellness is essentially a subjective experience. Gradients in resources and exposures associated with socioeconomic factors may reflect the impact of subjective social status (i.e. where one perceives oneself as fitting relative to others in a social hierarchy determined by wealth, influence, and prestige). This consists of an idea of a hierarchical system in which elites are superior, have no empathy for the middle class, in fact, express distain for those who they consider inferior. In this case it is the middle class who were caught off guard with the economic crisis, and in fact, are blamed for the economic problems.

The American Constitution identified a hierarchy of men who benefited from it and women, whom it left disempowered. It created a hierarchy of whites who enjoyed liberty, and blacks and native Americans, who were considered lesser type and therefore did not share in the equal rights of men. The Civil War and Universal Suffrage eventually modified this format somewhat. This definition of equality meant that the same laws applied to the rich as to the poor, and had nothing to do with integrated education or unemployment benefits. This liberty meant the state could not confiscate a man’s property (except in unusual circumstances) or tell him what to do with it. This American order established over 200 years ago upheld the hierarchy of wealth, which some thought was mandated by God, while others viewed as representing the immutable laws of nature.

 Ayn Rand developed a hierarchy of values: A man needs ideas regarding what to pursue in life and ideas with respect to the required means to get what he is seeking. He needs to identify the crucial indispensable values to his life and distinguish them from lesser values and non-values. He requires an explicit value hierarchy and should organize his time, effort, and lifestyle around that hierarchy. A person’s top values get a disproportionate amount of his attention; the next highest level of values gets the next call, and so on down his hierarchy. By eliminating non-values, filling one’s life with things that he loves, and doing those things in the order in which he loves them, a man is on track to accomplish what he wants to do with his finite life. To be a value means to be good for someone and for something. Life is one’s fundamental value because life is conditional and requires a particular course of action to maintain it.

By the end of the 20th century, individualism, happiness, and capitalism were part of the core values of Western culture. Individualism is the belief that one’s place in the societal hierarchy – their occupational class, income and wealth, and power and prestige as well as the placement such as health and disease status – comes through one’s own efforts, and the right to make free choices which feeds consumer capitalism. Individualism fueled the American Dream – the hope for a better quality of life through following the rules, leading to a higher standard of living than their parents had. Meritocratic individualism creates a blind spot to social supports provided by the community, allowing individuals to then give full credit to themselves for their successes. But so long as the system worked for them – so long as they were wealthier than their parents had been and could expect that their kids would be better off than them – people trusted that politicians were ultimately on their side.

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. It is necessary to challenge a hierarchical system in which elites are superior, have no empathy for the middle class, in fact, express distain for those who they consider inferior. For example, it is the middle class who were caught off guard with the 2008 economic crisis, and in fact, the plutocrats ensure they are blamed for the economic problems. The level of equality of opportunity determines how people perceive inequality. Societies in which individuals have the same chances to obtain valuable outcomes such as income, education and health, have a higher tolerance to inequality.

Individualism was established as a Western value during the Enlightenment. Individualism is the belief that one’s place in the social hierarchy – their occupational class, income and wealth, and power and prestige as well as the effects of such placement such as health and disease status – comes through one’s own effort. The lower people are on the socioeconomic hierarchy the higher their risk of developing chronic diseases, and the shorter their life expectancy. Income level interacts with other determinants to create differences in life experiences – quality of early life, education, employment and working conditions, food security, housing, social exclusion, etc. – and differences in health status. Nietzsche believed that true genius is innate and never acquired – one is born superior which determined social rank. This Nietzschean hierarchy is a so-called meritocracy – a system of success based on persons luckiest in health and genetic endowment, luckiest in social and economic resources.

At the beginning of the 21st century most scholars of culture believe that every culture has its typical beliefs, norms and values, but these are in constant flux. The culture may transform itself in response to changes in its environment or through interaction with neighboring cultures. But cultures also under go transitions due to their own internal dynamics. Even a completely isolated culture existing in an ecologically stable environment cannot avoid change. Unlike the law of physics which are free of inconsistencies, every man-made order is packed with internal contradictions. Cultures are constantly trying to reconcile these contradictions, and this process fuels change. Ever since the French revolution, people throughout the world have gradually come to see both social equality and individual freedom as fundamental values. Yet the two values contradict each other. Equality can be ensured only by curtailing the freedoms of those who are better off. Guaranteeing that every individual will be free to do as he wishes inevitably short-changes equality.1

One of the criticisms that postmodernists direct at modernism is its reliance on the development and maintenance of hierarchies. Hierarchical institutions are valuable if we believe that what the hierarchy perpetuates is more important to the well-being of society than what individuals might want. We might not have the ability to recognize what is important to the well-being of the greater society, this argument goes, but the hierarchy keeps the society’s needs in balance. If the postmodern spirit were to be summed up in simple terms, it might lie in this inherent struggle to avoid hierarchy in any way it manifests itself. Postmodernism has reacted to the authoritarian hierarchization of culture by subverting conventions blurring previously distinct boundaries and rejecting traditional aesthetic values. Lyotard believes: knowledge has become a commodity and consequently a means of empowerment; grand narratives are authoritative, establishing their political and cultural views as absolute truths beyond any criticism.

In 1979 Jean-François Lyotard introduced the term ‘postmodernism’, which was previously only used by art critics, into philosophy and social sciences, with the following observation: “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives”. Lyotard sees knowledge as being communicated through narratives, or different ways of interpreting the world. According to Lyotard, “grand narratives” are “unifying and controlling narratives of the past” – dominant narratives posing as guiding and transcendent stories of history – which have historically served as guarantors of truth, knowledge and meaning. Importantly, as he argues, within the realm of Western civilization, grand narratives have also been intertwined with the history of cultural imperialism. One such master narrative, the neoliberal project, serves the interest of a tiny minority with a myth that appears to “include” everybody; operates under the assumption of the notion of universal truth, while postmodernism explains the loss of its credibility.

While poor and middle-class wages were falling, the rich saw their incomes grow by 9.3 percent from 2000-2017, in the midst of the Global Recession. Poverty reduction requires continued strong growth, but it also requires that growth be inclusive. Modernism and postmodernism are fluid and dynamic oppositions which sway back and forth between hierarchy and anarchy, centralization and decentralization, purpose and play, authority and deconstruction, continuity and discontinuity. To sum it up, postmodernism is not a radical break with modernism. Instead, it is a cyclical moment until the emergence of a new condition. Modernism and postmodernism both surprisingly comprise and combine elements of revolutionary nature and conservatism, celebration of some sorts of ideas and their criticism. The growing populist movement in advanced economies is a predictable response to stagnating wages, middle class contraction, and worker displacement. Yet populist policies will make the problem worse in the long run.2 In order to combat this growing discontent, it is necessary to reframe the narrative on inequality.

1 Yuval Noah Harari (2014) Sapiens p. 180-183.2 Modernism and Postmodernism. (04 April 2017) https://enlightngo.org/language/en/post/3759

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

Fear and Uncertainty: the Foundation of Political Power Today

Posted on February 1, 2020 by greg

It is the fear of the nation state as a democratic force that underpins the neoliberal project. In the 21st century the myth of the market hinges on the illusion of a supposedly natural order in the economic realm. For the individual, John Locke (1632-1704) wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. On the level of institutions, it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The ‘pursuit of happiness’ as envisaged by Locke was not merely the pursuit of pleasure, property, or self-interest (although it does include all of these).  It is also the freedom to be able to make decisions that results in the best life possible for a human being, which includes intellectual and moral effort. We have the power and freedom to change the rules.

Globalists and neoliberals will repeatedly recite their belief in the ‘free market’ and in ‘free trade’. But the freedom that really motivates them is not freedom from state intervention, rather freedom from the intrusion of politics. In the end this comes down to freedom from being answerable to the people. The main goal of protecting capitalism from popular intrusion, and ultimately from popular insurrection, is what necessitates the globalist desire to curb the potentially disruptive effects on market processes of national democracy. Neoliberalism constructed a system that not only benefits the upper class but also effectively justifies this outcome – the political and social domination of the upper class are presented as normal outcomes of the functioning of the free market. Citizens are defined as customers, and competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It maintains that the market delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Neoliberal capitalism has nothing to do with democracy as justice is now linked to a market logic that divorces itself from social cost. To ensure the policy of minimal taxes and regulations remains unchanged, plutocrats control what you think through proxies who control the information and communication supporting deregulation of the government and the environment, and through their lobbyists who influence what most of your politicians believe. Through this mechanism they perpetuate the fear of change – if taxes are raised on the rich unemployment will rise and existing jobs will disappear. The economic elite manipulate the media and control the politicians (in the present) to ensure messaging that creates fear of change to such ideas as turning to a system with emphasis on stability, social conscience and regulation.  As a citizen you become more compliant, more willing to surrender your rights for vague promises of safety. As an employee you are less demanding, less willing to take risks.1

America is divided on such issues of economic policy, social policy, foreign policy, race, privacy and national security – while clustered into groups that compete against each other in a zero-sum game where negotiation and compromise are perceived as betrayal. Partisan gerrymandering render the House of Representatives so polarized that most lawmakers now fear a primary challenge from the right or left more than they fear losing to the other party in a general election. They have no incentive to compromise. This cries out for non-partisan redistricting commissions to redraw the lines and make House members more accountable to people other than the extremes of each party. The influence of wealthy donors has only gotten more pronounced over the years, and the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case only tilted the scales even more in the direction of corporations and billionaires. It is necessary to overturn Citizens United and fully adopt public financing of elections.

Are Republicans afraid of Trump? Actually, no – he’s destroying democracy and they love it. But these actions of the president are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Republicans. As a group, they are pushing towards replacing democracy with a system where a powerful minority holds disproportionate and borderline tyrannical control over government and blocks the majority of Americans from having meaningful say over the direction of the country. No, Republicans clearly feel empowered by Trump. He frees them to reveal their darkest desire – which is to end democracy as we know it, and to cut any corners or break any laws necessary to get the job done. Like their leaders, Republican voters are feeling done with democracy and eager to follow Trump into a new world, where the majority of Americans who vote for Democrats are kept out of power, by any means necessary.

We must fear the coming scourge of socialism (no matter that Trump himself so often advocates command-and-control-style economic policies). Trump likewise stokes public anxiety over “a Market Crash the likes of which has not been seen before” if “anyone but me takes over in 2020”. The reduction of regulations and of progressive income and corporate taxes by successive administrations from Ronald Reagan, both Bushes and Bill Clinton to Mr. Trump have contributed to a new Gilded Age with yawning income inequality and harsh attitudes about social legislation. The courts, packed with reliably conservative justices, have abetted a long-term assault by Republican state and federal administrations on labor unions, labor policies and legislation protecting worker rights and interests, leaving the U.S. with the lowest minimum wage among advanced nations. So-called “fiscal conservatism” and the ostensible pursuit of balanced budgets through tax cuts have gutted infrastructure, public education and social services.

The Democratic Party is a loose coalition of interest groups, but the modern Republican Party is dominated by “movement conservatism,” a monolithic structure held together by big money – often deployed stealthily – and the closed intellectual ecosystem of Fox News and other partisan media. And the people who rise within this movement are, to a far greater degree than those on the other side, apparatchiks, political loyalists who can be counted on not to stray from the party line. But, it’s not just the courts. Even as Trump and his allies spin fantasies about sabotage by the “deep state,” the reality is that a growing number of positions in government agencies are being occupied by right-wing partisans who care nothing, or actively oppose, their agencies’ missions. The Environmental Protection Agency is now run by people who don’t want to protect the environment, Health and Human Services by people who want to deny Americans health care.2

Overwhelming evidence proves Trump has no intention of obeying US laws, nor no real intention of devolving power back to the people. He is oblivious to his treason. Despite impeachment, Trump will continue to undermine the Constitution and threaten national and world security unless he is removed from office. The prevalence of “fake news,” the assaults on journalists and the free press, Russian cyberattacks and the profusion of lies by Trump and Republican colleagues is a planned strategy that is undermining American democracy. This is what Trump’s critics have warned about all along: that he’s an authoritarian who would use the office of the presidency to destroy norms (like his attempts, as in the Fox interview, to undermine the independence of the Department of Justice). And in destroying those norms, Trump undermines American democracy itself which, in turn, supports the neoliberal project.

Neoliberalism is the rationalization for the tyranny of the power elite. Following the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and propagated by right-wing pundits; an attitude developed among many people that one’s economic position is always their own fault. The super-rich believe that freedom means the ability to gain unlimited amounts of wealth without accountability; this belief has trickled down such that now this is how most conventional political thinkers also view freedom. The present political system is controlled by neither conservatives or liberals, rather controlled by a tiny ruling circle, whose agenda isn’t to advance the traditional definition of conservativism or liberalism, but to protect their own wealth or power. America’s culture is in a crisis of empathy where people are encouraged to only think of their own interests while ignoring the circumstances of those who are different from them. In reality, these institutions drive cynicism in the population, which is very corrosive to democracy if left unchecked.

A little more than a year after America rebelled against political elites by electing a self-proclaimed champion of the people, Donald Trump, its government is more deeply in the pockets of lobbyists and billionaires than ever before. A Princeton University study notes: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” But so long as the system worked for them – so long as they were wealthier than their parents had been and could expect that their kids would be better off than them – people trusted that politicians were ultimately on their side. While cynicism is fear to believe, at the other end of the spectrum is blind faith where one is afraid to question. In between cynicism and blind faith, one finds skepticism that promotes no fear for either questions or hope. One must be skeptical of why the courts refuse to reign in open-ended campaign spending to reduce the influence of money.

1 Phil Mullan. (22 March 2019) The truth about neoliberalism. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/22/the-truth-about-neoliberalism/

2 Paul Krugman (23 Dec 2018) Opinion: How the GOP is undermining our democracy https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-how-the-gop-undermining-our-democracy/qsr3gG9SEgNpmejCFqeTKK/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ok Boomer: The Anger is About the Illusion of Choice

Posted on January 20, 2020 by greg

“Ok, Boomer” is a verbal eye-roll that expresses derision, frustration, and a subversive compliance. And it says something important about the newest generation of Americans: they’re worried. In particular, generation Z is worried about the future: their chances of economic success in a rapidly changing world, the exploding cost of higher education, environmental concerns, and societal injustices. Naturally, they see older generations as having a hand in creating or at least perpetuating these problems. We now live in a world of illusion and see the world not as it is but as we want it to be. The illusion is nothing can change without the market – there is no alternative to neoliberal capitalism. Neoliberalism has outlived the socioeconomic conditions that gave rise to its existence. We need to seek an answer to this challenge with new ways of thinking, and introduce solutions to address inequities.

Generation X-ers did not let it happen. Millennials are suffering, with college education sky rocketing, they are buried in debt. They are struggling to find jobs, and millennials cannot buy homes. The ‘free marketplace’ is a grand illusion for those in power to promote to justify dominance over those who are less privileged. Of course, it is based on greed being a virtue, relying on a system to harness the selfishness of people and direct it to public good, thus freeing itself from the need to depend unrealistically upon the uncertain moral virtues of its participants. The political and social domination of the economic elite are presented as normal outcomes of the functioning of the free market. The neoliberal worldview has been embedded in contemporary culture to such an extent and now is so pervasive that any countervailing evidence serves only to further convince people of its ultimate truth.  

Everyone accepted the idea that deregulated markets were self-correcting. The illusion was that this system, a product of globalization, could self-correct as required. The ugly truth was that a few greedy bankers on Wall Street could just about collapse the world financial system. It was triggered by the consequences of policies championed by a small group of influential people. The financial sector took advantage of the system, empowered by reckless deregulation. Deregulation has been above all else, a means to reducing corporate business accountability to the public. After the Great Recession unemployment skyrockets due to the financial crisis, and experienced Boomers get first pick of jobs as the economy recovered, then as their pensions crash they delay retirement, blocking millennials from advancing their careers. As millennials pitch toward middle age, many are failing to make it to the middle class, and are likely to be the first generation in modern economic history to end up worse off than their parents.

Maintaining the illusion of prosperity, though, is critical to the economy as it is, because its foundation is built on consumption, fraud, credit and debt. The toxic combination of lower earnings and higher student-loan balances – combined with tight credit in the recovery years – has led to millennials getting shut out of the housing market, and thus losing a seminal way to build wealth. As a result, millennials have not benefited from the dramatic rebound in housing prices that has occurred since the financial collapse and the foreclosure crisis. Millennials have also been forced to shell out hundreds of billions of dollars in rent as housing costs have skyrocketed in many urban areas. This represents a large generational transfer of wealth from the young to the old. In addition, as boomers are looking to downsize, there is often a mismatch of where the large house is built and where the millennial wants to live.

More and more millennials find themselves in an era of insecurity as the safe routines of their lives have become undone, they now realize that the market system failed them, and this security was an illusion. Neoliberalism is an ideology of fear and insecurity that enslaves us all. In the 21st century the myth of the market hinges on the illusion of a supposedly natural order in the economic realm. This ideology is used to direct public policy (not only in the US but around the world) under the illusion it creates opportunities and frees individuals from control of the state. Presenting people with an alleged threat to their well being will elicit a powerful emotional response that can override reason and prevent a critical assessment of these policies. As author Mark Vernon has noted, “… the politics of fear plays on an assumption that people cannot bear the uncertainties associated with [risk]. Politics then becomes a question of who can better deliver an illusion of control.

The economic elite have engineered the system from the top down to create unlimited wealth for a few at the top. Neoliberalism constructed a system that not only benefits the upper class but also effectively justifies this outcome – abandons the interventionist model of the welfare state to emphasize the use of ‘free market’ mechanisms to regulate society. We are beholding to Donald Trump for pulling back the curtain and drawing attention to the mechanism of the social repression behind the illusion of minimal government and austerity. He governs like a king – as the only public person – re-enforcing the fact that ‘people’ are spectators with no real input into government decisions. We must begin the process to end big money’s grip on politics to take back control of the public sphere to ensure the ongoing transformation in structures of public communication in order to overcome social repression.

Neoliberalism is responsible for a defining shift in society. Malcom Harris argues, millennials are bearing the brunt of the economic damage wrought by late-20th-century capitalism. All these insecurities – and the material conditions that produced them – have thrown millennials into a state of perpetual panic. If “generations are characterized by crises,” as Harris argues, “then ours is the crisis of extreme capitalism. (T)o understand why millennials are the way they are, then we have to look at the increased competition between workers, the increased isolation of workers from each other, the extreme individualism of modern American society, and the widespread problems of debt and economic security facing this generation. And because wages are stagnant and exploitation is up, competition among workers is up too. Thus, as individuals, the best thing we can do for ourselves is work harder, learn to code, etc.”1

The issue isn’t personal narcissism and selfie culture but, rather, a culture of mass consumption and material acquisition. Western popular culture promotes these values, fueling a consumer culture built on speed, excess and distraction; whole industries today are built around reproducing socially-approved images of perfection, from cosmetic surgery to college test prep. Our mediated lives are populated with images of what we aren’t, what we aspire to be, and what is impossible to achieve. No wonder young minds are awash in emptiness and insatiable hunger for self-fulfillment. More and more millennials are protesting, boycotting, calling out, and sharing memes that reflect their anger about politics and social issues. “Anger is a very social emotion,” Dean Burnett says. “Someone who is angry prompts corresponding reactions in the brains of those around them, either making them more calm in order to neutralize the angry person, or making them angry in turn.”

Today the power elite manipulates the collective illusion that the free markets of globalization maximize individual freedom, choice and prosperity. Democracy is the best human weapon so far invented for guarding against the ‘illusion of certainty’ and breaking up truth camouflaged monopolies of power, wherever they operate. Democracy reminds us that truths are never self-evident, and what counts as truth is a matter of interpretation. Democracy supposes that no man or woman is good enough to claim they know the truth, and to rule permanently and controlling choices and opportunities of their fellows. We must begin the process to end big money’s grip on politics, then people will be able to create their own form of truth and choose actions and politics to support it. Millennials must not doubt that democracy remains the best human weapon so far invented for guarding against the erosion of truth to introduce the necessary change to create a successful society.

Workers have always been exploited, but that rate of exploitation – measured by the productivity wage gap that is today’s reality – is increasing exponentially for millennials. But they’re not individuals, not as far as bosses are concerned. The vast majority are considered replaceable workers, and by working harder for less, are undermining themselves as a class. It’s a vicious cycle. The capitalist millennials are going to be just as bad, if not worse, than the boomers, because they’ve inherited this exploitative system. The millennials have a good reason to be angry. Anger is power. It’s red. It’s heat. Anger is movement and sound. Anger is a force for change, a force of strength. The message: as quality of life is not primarily a function of what we consume – then protecting the environment need not be at odds with promoting human well-being. The answer: Millennials will lead the world out of scarcity and develop a clean and safe environment that is not detrimental to health.

1 Sean Illing. (16 March 2019) Why are millennials burned out? Capitalism.  https://www.vox.com/2019/2/4/18185383/millennials-capitalism-burned-out-malcolm-harris

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

The Tragedy of Capitalism in America

Posted on January 10, 2020 by greg

A Shakespearean tragedy typically tells the story of a seemingly heroic figure whose major characteristic flaw causes his story to end in his tragic downfall. The elements of a Shakespearean tragedy can also include external conflict, internal conflict, manipulation and abuse of power, supernatural, and chance happening. The setting of our story is a failing economic system – the prevailing neoliberal policy framework has failed society, resulting in monumental and growing income gap. In short, the existing neoliberal capitalism in America appears to be another name for economics controlled by an existing economic elite. Populists and neoliberals see the crisis facing their countries as an opportunity, for populists to prove their charisma and for neoliberals to discredit state-interventionist development model. The heroic figure of the story, Donald Trump, the so-called anti-establishment candidate, has a tragic flaw – the need for fame, letting adulation wreck his judgment. Successful populists like Trump essentially earn a mandate from their supporters to shake up the system.

The action of our heroic figure is motivated by external and internal conflicts – which play off one another. Trump’s internal conflict is the confusion in his mind about his legitimacy, and his need for validation. When Trump moved from Queens to Manhattan, he wished to be more than accepted in Manhattan, he wanted to be adored, there and only there, and came to despise it when time and again he was rejected. His humiliation at his failure to ‘make it there’ is at the heart of his vengeful compulsion to wreak humiliation on those he fears will belittle him. The uncontrollable anger that unleashes a regular flood of insults derives from his profound feeling that he is the true victim. Resentment born of entitlement, of the feeling that he was being treated an inferior though he knew he was superior, was an inadvertent and inverse link with the lower middle-class whites who fled Queens and Brooklyn in the 1950s and 1960s for the Long Island suburbs to escape black migration.

Manipulative characters all play a hand in the hero’s downfall. Steve Bannon and Steve Miller are two such characters. Steve Bannon took over Breitbart News in 2012, which has long been the vehicle to promote Bannon’s slate of populist “anti-establishment” Republican candidates. Way back in August 2015, long before James Comey became a household name and “lock her up” became a go-to chant, Breitbart was already expertly tricking readers into thinking reputable news outlets – in this case the Washington Post – were the ones doing the spinning. In August 2016 Bannon is named CFO of Trump’s presidential bid; following victory is appointed Chief Strategist in the Trump Administration.  Stephen Miller is a far-right political activist who serves as a senior advisor for policy for President Donald Trump. He was previously the communications director for then-Senator Jeff Sessions. He pushed white-nationalist materials on staffers at the Breitbart website in the runup to the 2016 presidential election.

Bannon who says he wants to destroy the state is attracted to the ideas of Julius Evola on traditionalism. Evola’s book, Revolt Against the Modern World, speculated that the near-universal myth of a lost Golden Age was actually a collective memory of a time when religion and temporal power were united, and society was ruled by spiritual warriors. Evola’s belief that creating change is “not a question of contesting and polemicizing, but of blowing everything up.” In short, cultural ecology predicts that a historical moment of change such as now occurring would provide the ideal growth medium for social and religious movements that glorify a largely imagined past, anticipate a cathartic renewal (which they may seek to precipitate) and promise followers a privileged position in the coming order. Traditionalist movements often sell themselves as counterculture. The modern world (or so the right-wing narrative often goes) is corrupt, morally decrepit, decadent and decayed as standards have slipped.

Through the use of the supernatural in Macbeth the witches create a sense of mystery. The opening scene is significant because it puts the audience in fear. A product of tabloid culture, Donald Trump has long trafficked in conspiracy theories – from climate change denial to the lie that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States – and many of his ardent supporters spend hours on line spreading them. One conspiracy theory began with articles in far-right and Russian media outlets before spreading to the fever swamp of internet message boards. Another originated with a researcher connected to Steve Bannon and a Ukrainian prosecutor accused of going soft on corruption. Trump launched a campaign to push both of these evidence-free narratives, culminating in a July telephone call with his Ukrainian counterpart that now sits at the center of impeachment proceedings. Conspiracist fears provide a warped logic to the politics of the far right.

Shakespeare, in most tragedies, allows ‘chance’ in some form to influence some of the action. A chance happening in the first term of the Trump presidency was the firing of FBI Director James Comey. The firing came two months after Comey confirmed at a hearing in March 20th that the bureau was investigating “whether there was any co-ordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts” to influence the 2016 presidential campaign. This event significantly changed the course of the Russia investigation and led to the appointment of Mueller. In the 2018 midterms Democrats retook the majority in the House – gaining new powers to investigate Trump. The day after the Mueller Report flopped, Trump got on the phone with the Ukrainian president and repeatedly sought his help in an attempt to damage political rival, Democratic candidate Joe Biden. That men may start a course of events but can neither calculate nor control it, is a tragic fact.

Neoliberal transformations and structural violence have impacted many countries. An example of the banking system: If a leading presidential candidate in an emerging market lost favor with Wall Street, the banks would pull their money out of the country. Voters then faced a stark choice: Give in to Wall Street or face a financial crisis. It was as if Wall Street had more political power than the country’s citizens. Even in rich countries citizens were told: “You can’t pursue the policies you want” – whether adequate social protection, decent wages, progressive taxation, or well-regulated financial system – “because the country will lose competitiveness, jobs will disappear and you will suffer.”  Elites promised that neoliberal policies would lead to faster economic growth, and the benefits would trickle down so that everyone, including the poorest, would be better off. To get there though, workers would have to accept lower wages, and all citizens would have to accept cutbacks in important government programs.

If the 2008 financial crisis failed to make us realize that unfettered markets don’t work, the climate crisis certainly should. The problem is that politicians only think as far ahead as the next election. With the proclamation of the 21st century to be the era of climate change, the Trojan horse of neoliberal restructuring entered the political arena of climate change talks and policy, and a more virulent strain of capital accumulation began. For this reason, delegates from the African nations, with the support of the group of 77 (developing countries) walked out of the 2009 United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen, accusing rich countries of dragging their heels, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and destroying the mechanism through which this reduction could be achieved – Kyoto protocol. In the absence of an internationally binding agreement on emissions reduction, all individual actions taken to reduce emissions – a flat global carbon tax, recycling, hybrid cars, carbon offsets, a few solar panels here and there, and so on – are mere theatrics.

Along with the democratization of the political sphere, modern writers of tragedies have turned their gaze on the plight of the common man. For Arthur Miller, a story becomes tragic when the common man, to gain his dignity, fights against his world and circumstances, despite all odds against him, and loses. After two years, Trump’s tax cuts have failed the common man. The claim that a huge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations would trickle down to everyone else was based on an outdated and discredited set of ideas for how the economy works. The Trump administration’s only focus is the next election. If it has anything to do with Obama or climate change they are against the regulation. Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, said the move to pull US out of the Paris Climate Accord is “cruel to future generations, leaving the world less safe and productive”.

Donald Trump did have some valid and important insights into America’s current problems and he had a chance to do something about them when he got elected. His promise to bring back the factory jobs of 30 years ago gave working-class Americans hope for better jobs. That opportunity has been wasted, however, and Trump’s flaws as a politician, strategist, and human being are the main reason why. Trump’s performance record as president is comprised of an unbroken string of broken promises, opportunities squandered, principles violated, and intentions abandoned. These results notwithstanding, we must respond to this tragedy. Individuals and communities can simply concentrate on practical efforts to bring the greatest good to the most people (and other species) over the longest time by rethinking and redesigning production and consumption patterns in anticipation of the failure of the existing consumerist institutions.

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

Alienation is the Catalyst for Social Change to Create a Healthy Middle Class

Posted on January 1, 2020 by greg

Hegel’s theory is basically that mankind is merely a series of constant philosophical conflicts. That Hegel was in some sense a critic of social contract theory is beyond dispute. The social contract theory maintained that in organized society the individual must forfeit a certain number of individual rights to the state as the representative of the collective interest of the community. The struggle that Hegel envisioned is the great tension between ‘is’ and ‘ought,’ between the way things are and the way they ought to be. Neoliberal capitalism as market rationality describes individuals as consumers, not citizens. This self-interest and competitiveness among fellow workers leads to alienation. We can use Hegel’s dialectical thinking to reveal social contradictions, and to demand the overcoming of those contradictions through social change. The goal of such a process is not any specific measure of freedom, rather it is the elimination of alienation.

Alienation as the sense of a lack of power has been technically defined by Seaman as “the expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or the reinforcements he seeks.” But Hegel considers alienation only at the level of consciousness (stages of consciousness or internal alienation) while Marx transitions external alienation by appropriation of labor in his writing. Rotter distinguishes between internal control and external locus of control, which means “differences (among persons or situations) in the degree to which success or failure is attributable to external factors (e.g. luck, chance, or powerful others), as against success or failure that is seen as the outcome of one’s personal skills or characteristics.” Powerlessness, therefore, is the perception that the individual does not have the means to achieve his goals.1

There is increasing inequality in wealth and in particular the perception by unemployed or low paid workers that they are being ‘passed by’ or not included in the so-called wealth-generating economy. The feeling is particularly strong among workers who previously had well paid jobs (or expectations of well-paid jobs) in manufacturing but have seen those jobs disappear in their lifetime. However, there are now also growing numbers of well-educated younger people struggling to find well-paid work while at the same time carrying a large debt as a result of increasingly expensive higher education. Dysfunctional political systems are another factor, where people feel that they have little or no control over decisions made by government, that government is controlled by those with power and money, and political power is used to protect the ‘elites’. The neoliberal venture has been devastatingly successful in reinforcing the transfer of wealth and power from public to private, from poor to rich and from labor to capital.

Foucault stated that rather than a form of ideological control which is exerted externally, neoliberalism is a form of governmentality which has been internalized by individuals who self-regulate and discipline themselves. This process is articulated in the work of Hayek who acknowledged that market rationality is not inherent within the behavior of the individual and needs, instead, to be galvanized and adjusted through their social experiences. Moreover, mechanisms which facilitate the internalization of market rationality, such as competition between individuals, do not spontaneously occur within a laissez-faire framework; they must be created through a conscious and active process of societal adjustment. This underlies Bourdieu and Wacquant’s (2001) warning that as a result of political spin, the true nature of neoliberal projects is often disguised or presented as fresh and reformist. Self-development discourse instills stronger individualism in society, while constraining collective identity, and thus provides social control and contributes to preserving status quo of neoliberal societies.

Governance has become a key aspect of the roll-out function of neoliberalism. While this does not originate in the writings of the pioneering neoliberal thinkers such as Hayek, neoliberalism in practice has matured and governance has become an effective tool at managing populations. It manages conduct by forming best practices, founded on the application of the narrow set of neoliberal values, across a diverse range of institutional settings. Subjects must invest in their human capital to meet the requirements of economic growth which, according to neoliberal logic, can only be achieved via adherence to a narrow set of free-market rules. Individuals become sacrificed to the project of economic growth, but do not form the constituent part of a collective as governance conducts and coerces its subjects to find individual solutions to dilemmas. Moreover, the consolidation of wealth to a limited minority has meant that the wealthy are in control of the political agenda.2

NGOs exercise a degree of agency. What makes NGOs distinct is their ambivalence: the fact that they are, on the one hand, a ‘favored institutional form’ of the neoliberal state and, on the other, capable of building alliances against neoliberalism. NGOs have partnered with government to deliver services often under the guise as a solution to poor service coverage or delivery by the state sector; increased democratization; and attempting to mobilize public responsibility to tackle poverty, establish shared responsibility and bridging the gulf between reduced state services and the needs of society. However, the use of NGOs draws them into regulatory systems, but also as these organizations become more dependent on government finance for service delivery and survival, it weakens their ability to advocate for social and economic change as well as social justice while strengthening the need for them to respond positively to evaluation criteria, service delivery models and government requirements.

Hegel claims individuals are in various states of alienation – the tension created between the way things are and the way they ought to be. Once the potentialities of a particular society had been realized in the creation of a certain mode of life, its historical role was over; its members became aware of its inadequacies, and the laws and institutions they had previously accepted unquestioningly in the past were now experienced as fetters, inhibiting further development and no longer reflecting their deepest aspirations. In contemporary usage, “populism” is generally understood to mean political movements and individuals who channel widespread alienation and frustration by claiming to speak for “the people” against forces that are said to be destroying cherished ways of life. There can be no progress, according to Hegel, without struggle. For Hegel, the struggle against alienation becomes the attainment of freedom.

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 we must address the massive cognitive bubble of neoliberal capitalism. This creates what Guy Standing in 2011 called the dangerous class – a group working below their capabilities precisely because they have no other option, and susceptible to rhetoric from populist politicians with simplistic solutions.

The invisible hand is more like a thumb on the scale for the world’s elites. That’s why neoliberal globalization has been unmasked as bogus economics but keeps winning politically. The existential threat of global climate change reflects the incompetence of markets to accurately price carbon and the escalating costs of pollution. Neoliberal ideology is so useful to society’s most powerful people – as a scholarly veneer to what would otherwise be a raw power grab. Democracy funded and fueled by corporate power disenfranchises the individual, provoking some to search for empowerment through identity politics. Within neoliberalism a person’s identity becomes so undermined by the system that he/she must adopt a social identity in order to create a sense of personal identity and connection with others. The power elites presently manipulating the system claim that inequality is a key part of the economic system, and rely on doublespeak to explain it.

Neoliberalism must be replaced by a social movement pressing for support of the working classes. The consequence of the structural domination of capital is alienation, loneliness, anxiety and isolation. Neoliberal policies structure the interests of capital, not the people, and the state is necessary to establish and enforce rules by which markets operate. It is necessary to limit this powerlessness by acting in solidarity through unions, social movements and election campaigns. Most skeptics believe that by continuously questioning our knowledge, the source thereof, and what is held as “truth,” we can greatly reduce the risk of being deceived. The goal of such a process is not any specific measure of economic freedom, rather it is the potential to reduce the level of alienation. This requires the introduction of the right set of tools that support economic and environmental sustainability and creates a healthy middle class, which in turn, keeps the economy balanced.

1 Ernest Mandel. (1970) The Causes of Alienation https://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1970/causes_of_alienation.htm

2 James Hart and Matt Henn. Neoliberalism and the Unfolding Patterns of Young People’s Political Engagement and Political Participation in Contemporary Britain https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/7/4/33/htm

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

Making Social and Economic Policies Through the Lens of the Social Determinants of Health

Posted on December 20, 2019 by greg

The inequities in the conditions in which people are born, live and work are driven by inequities in power, money, and resources. Political, economic, and resource distribution decisions made outside the health sector need to consider health as an outcome across the social distribution as opposed to focus solely on increasing productivity. The scope of the scale of the influence of social determinants illustrates that social and environmental influences are highly significant, contributing to between 45% and 60% of the variation in health status. There is a need to incentivize, or require other sectors to consider health outcomes. In England, there is free universal health coverage but widespread large and persistent inequalities in health between social groups. This largely because, for many communicable and non-communicable diseases, acting at the point at which one presents with a health problem can be too late. Action on the social determinants of health is required to reduce inequities in health.

Social policy is often aligned with the social determinants of health, however, economic policies to promote growth may have done so at the expense of quality of work and security. Since 2008 austerity programs have resulted in reduced services and real cuts that affect the real value of social protection. The lower people are in the social hierarchy, the more likely they are to be obese, to be less physically active, to smoke, to suffer the consequences of alcohol. The social environment impacts on health by conditioning people’s behaviors. People under stress turn to alcohol, drugs, and violence because of that stress. It’s not very mysterious that people do that. These behaviors tend to follow the social gradient. To improve health, reduce health inequities and reduce cost on healthcare (and other service) budgets, we need to improve the conditions in which people are born, live, work and age.

From decades of research, we have learned that the determinants of health and health inequalities are most effectively addressed with upstream public policy interventions that focus on reducing poverty and income inequality, including labor market and minimum wage policies. Income is the most important ‘upstream’ determinant of health. People with lower incomes have less favorable health outcomes, higher rates of chronic disease and lower life expectancies. The differences in health outcomes that exist between socio-economic classes are referred to as health inequalities. A direct relationship exists between rising income inequalities and inequalities in health across a given population. A research report confirmed that low-income British Columbians are at greater a risk factor of chronic disease and are more likely to suffer from diabetes, heart disease, anxiety and depression than people with higher incomes. It is much more complex than just providing the poor: food, shelter and clothing.

When it comes to health, there are many factors that influence how long and how well people will live, from the quality of their education to the cleanliness of their environment. But of all social determinants of health, research shows there is one that is perhaps the most influential: income. Science consistently shows that low incomes are a significant risk factor in disease incidence and severity as well as life expectancy. One of the more obvious ways to address income inequality is by raising the minimum wage, an issue currently at the forefront of national debate and finding success in states and localities across the country. For example, a Saskatchewan study found that low-income residents’ health care costs were 35 per cent higher than middle- and higher-income groups, amounting to $179 million in annual savings to the provincial government if low-income residents had the same health care costs as middle-income residents.1

Increasing the minimum wage is a necessary step in reducing avoidable health care costs associated with poverty and inequality.  By reducing health inequalities that are costly to government and have a corrosive effect on society, a $15 minimum wage and progress towards the Living Wage must be seen for what it is – a prescription for health equity and smart management of public finances. While a $15 minimum wage would bring full-time workers slightly above the poverty line, it will not fully eliminate inequalities in health outcomes for households at the bottom of the income distribution. This will require further action to boost incomes and reduce inequality through a comprehensive poverty reduction plan, improving tax fairness, increasing welfare and disability rates, upstream investments in universal early childhood education and public policies that recognize and support the role of labor unions in promoting public health.

Income security is the most important social determinant of health. Level of income shapes overall living conditions, affects psychological functioning, and influences health related behaviors such as quality of diet, extent of physical activity, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol use. Societies with greater income inequality have fewer collective resources to invest in the educational, medical, and cultural infrastructure, which in turn hurts health and stretches the social fabric. Regulatory legislation and funding can influence health across the country. For example, implementing employment laws that provide employment security, benefits during and if these jobs end, deciding whether to fund early child development programs or supports to seniors, foster care programs, or continuing education can have very different health impacts upon different segments of the population. Those whose social determinants of health needs are left to the whims of the employment market may suffer negative health consequences as a result.

Housing insecurity is a critical social determinant of health, demanding the attention of healthcare industry professionals, according to a new guidebook from the American Hospital Association (AHA). The report specifically focuses on housing as it affects various components of patient health, including liability for certain diseases, ability to access clinicians, exposure to and threat of violence, quality educational attainment, and other social factors. The 2013 American Housing Survey, a report on housing quality and access, found that about 2 percent of housing units, nearly 2 million dwellings, had severe physical problems – with a lack of plumbing, running water or heat accounting for the majority of cases – from 2005 to 2009. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that while lead-based paint was banned in 1978, more than 24 million homes still have deteriorated lead paint in them. More than 4 million of those are young children’s homes.

The level of educational attainment is increasingly being recognized as an important social determinant of health. While higher educational attainment can play a significant role in shaping employment opportunities, it can also increase the capacity for better decision making regarding one’s health, and provide scope for increasing social and personal resources that are vital for physical and mental health. Higher educational attainment can also play an important role in health by shaping employment opportunities, which are the major determinants of economic resources. More educated individuals will experience lower rates of unemployment, which is strongly associated with worse health and higher mortality. Higher educational attainment can also affect health by influencing social and psychological factors like greater perceived personal control, which has frequently been linked with better health and health-related behaviors, higher relative social standing and increased social support. All these factors are associated with better physical and mental health.

Healthy People 2020 organizes the social determinants of health around five key domains: (1) Economic Stability, (2) Education, (3) Health and Health Care, (4) Neighborhood and Built Environment, and (5) Social and Community Context. Economic stability includes employment, food security and housing stability. Education extends from early childhood education and development to high school graduation to enrollment in higher education. Health care includes access to public health programs and acute care system. Neighborhood and built environment addresses the availability of healthy food in neighborhood stores, quality housing that includes control of crime and environmental conditions. Social and community context encompasses social cohesion; discrimination and incarceration.2 Inequalities in the distribution of the social determinants of health are now a widely recognized problem, seen as requiring immediate and significant action. A new system would make decisions through the lens of the social determinants of health in order to counter the inequity in the system.

We need to ban making public policy decisions through the lens of the market (complex and multi-faceted issues are oversimplified allowing self-responsibility to become the dominant issues, and life-style change the response) and switch to filter social and economic policies through the lens of the social determinants of health before they are implemented to ensure they support actions that reduce inequities in the system. The problem is therefore not so much inequality typically attributed to manipulation by an economic elite, but rather the way in which the effects of inequality get distributed throughout society with certain groups comparatively sheltered from them, and others not. Once the middle class understands the effects within the community of the social determinants of health – reduction in those suffering chronic diseases, extra individuals entering the workforce, savings in welfare payments, fewer hospital admissions and fewer prescriptions for medications – they can participate in creating change when they visit the voting booth.

1 Andrew Longhurst. (05 Feb 2018) Raising the minimum wage is good for public health. https://www.policynote.ca/raising-the-minimum-wage-is-good-for-public-health/

2 Social Determinants of Health Overview. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP 2020) https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-health/interventions-resources

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged | Leave a comment

Creating New Institutions: Discovering the Road to Freedom

Posted on December 10, 2019 by greg

Before the Enlightenment human beings were generally considered in terms of how they fit into social hierarchies and communal institutions, but following enlightenment the view was that the individual rather than society as a whole, is the most important entity. Enlightenment thinkers argued that liberty was a natural human right and that reason and scientific knowledge – not the state or the church – were responsible for human progress. During the Enlightenment successes in understanding the physical world through processes of logic and observation encouraged the belief that similar progress might be made in the area of political economy and social relations. For Hegel (1770-1831), freedom is realized through self-determination and self-actualization. Hegel sees ideas in the abstract but embodied in society and institutions that change. He believed there is no role for individual freedom, even though one may behave as he likes, he is not free. Freedom is more than one’s own capacity for decisions.

Hegel stresses a state needs a strong and effective central public authority, and in resisting the Estates who are trying to live in the feudal past. Hegel rejects violent popular action and sees the modern state the principal force for reform in governments and the estates assemblies, and he thinks reforms should always stress legal equality and the public welfare. The democratic element in a state is not its sole feature and it must be institutionalized in a rational manner. Moreover, Hegel repeats the need for strong state regulation of the economy, which if left to its own workings is blind to the needs of the social community. The economy, especially through the division of labor, produces fragmentation and diminishment of human life and the state must not only address this phenomenon but also provide the means for the people’s political participation to further the development of social self-consciousness.1

George Orwell (1903-1950) was attending university at the end of the First World War. The young men returning from the war were angry at their elder’s incompetence for having led them to such mass slaughter. This mood of rebellion in Britain spread to rebellion against the old class system, which, in most people’s minds, was inextricably linked to capitalism. After university, Orwell served a five-year stint in the Civil Service with the Indian Imperial Police Force in Burma. During this time he became convinced that the British Empire was run by a non-productive corrupt upper class that exploited her colonial possessions for financial gain and left the native population and England’s own working classes in poverty and squalor “… the Empire was under-developed, India slept in the Middle Ages, the Dominions lay empty, with foreigners jealously barred out, and even England was full of slums and unemployment. Only half a million people, the people in the country houses, definitely benefited from the existing system.”

For Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), freedom is not the absolute liberty to do as one pleases, rather it is the recognition of the necessity of law and morality in order to ensure that human interaction is cooperative and orderly. Freedom of action within the law gives rise to market phenomena such as prices and profits, both of which make the private knowledge of actors socially accessible to others, which in turn generates economic coordination. Basically, we need freedom within the law not because we know what to do and freedom allows us to do it, but because we are ignorant of what to do and freedom allows us to discover the best ways of doing things. Unlike true conservatives, who see in both the present and the past, traditions to be recaptured and preserved at almost any cost, Hayek recognizes that society is the product of continuing evolutionary processes that are unintended consequences of the choices and values of the humans who constitute them.

For Hayek, what matters is whether the institutions in question are performing a valuable function, not whether they perform the same function they always have, or whether they take the same form we have always known.2 In the second decade of the 21st century the top 5% control economic resources of the world. A new social hierarchy that forms a global community or class system connected by interest and ideology has appeared. This new hierarchy opposes (change) increases in their taxes and the tightening of the regulations of their economic activities. They believe this (low taxes) is driving the whole system. The new global hierarchy is a system in which privileged groups in both developed and developing countries act (often in concert) to protect their own position at the expense of others. Right-wing think tanks subsidize the research of intellectuals to develop free market rhetoric that is elaborate and intellectually vacuous in order to distract the public and legislators from focusing on issues.

Neoliberals insist that they are agents of change. They aim to reform society by subordinating it to the market. Their goal is essentially to erase any distinctions among the state, society and the market. A major challenge of the neoliberals is how to maintain their pretense of freedom as non-coercion when, in practice, it seems unlikely that most people would freely choose the neoliberal version of the state. Their answer is to treat politics as if it were a market, and promote an economic theory of democracy while redefining the shape and functions of the state. In this manner, pretend one can replace ‘citizen’ with ‘customer’ and create a system based on market logic. In this system there is no special status of human labor. The human being is reduced to a bundle of investments and skill sets involved in an entrepreneurial strategic pursuit of advantage. The individual no longer has a special status; classes disappear as every individual is both employer and worker simultaneously. This vocabulary disarms discourse around such issues as social justice.

Neoliberal ideology claims the market ensures everyone gets what they deserve. In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their challenges or conditions according to the workings of the market as opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional forces like racism and economic inequality. The distinctive characteristics of this new postmodern period are evident in many areas of social life, including personal relationships, lifestyles, and identity formation at the micro level and restructuring of economic hierarchies, increased cultural fragmentation and relativism, and globalization in all its different dimensions at the macro level. Neoliberal economic and political policies have oriented society towards specific conceptions of individualism that detached subjects from their ethnic and cultural identities where these were antithetical to the imperatives of global capitalism.  Individual neoliberal subjects were constituted to think of themselves primarily as consumers whose primary agency was to make decisions about what commodities to acquire and how to engage in the economy as market actors looking after their self-interest.

David Harvey explains, “For any system of thought to become dominant, it requires the articulation of fundamental concepts that become so deeply embedded in common sense understanding that they are taken for granted and beyond question.” Neoliberalism has successfully reached this point in postmodernity, making it postmodernity’s defining ideological feature. The Great Recession of 2008 saw the rich get richer and the poor being ripped off. The Occupy Wall Street protests challenged the excess of corporations in general, and in particular, a government controlled by corporate money, and the insecurity of job tenure and the menace of layoff that it implies. The consequence of this was that many people became attracted to reactionary politics which emphasized a return to traditional identity and its values, the destruction of the elites responsible for undermining it while retaining the neoliberal skepticism about “objective” truths which were barriers to the pursuit of one’s interest – heralded the rise of the populists.

At one time the economic elite were content with manipulating the oil market to create spikes in stock value, now they manipulate news stories to influence voters. Foucault observes 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. The economic elite do not hesitate to present their ideology as interpretation of truth. The real problem is the economic elite who now have the capabilities to propagate narratives in the media irrespective of who owns it. The answer to build an alternative to the neoliberal ideology will not be by petitioning the economic elite to fix things for us, rather it will be by citizens participating in the challenge of the task of creating new institutions that better serve the needs of the community.

Hegel’s concept of freedom can best be regarded as the answer to a problem – the problem of how a man can be free in a universe which is governed by necessary laws. You must find your own point in history, claims Hegel, and start to reflect on yourself in relation to the world. When asking searching questions of yourself, realize that freedom resides not in the brain, but in the traditions of critical thought and skeptical reason. Hegel believed in a freedom of action that included struggle through rational deliberation – when we cease to strive to realize a potential then we live by habit, by rote. A new definition of freedom has emerged during the second decade of the 21st century that eludes the majority of citizens – the freedom of choices to reach their full potential. We will change institutions by electing progressive candidates with policies to begin the process to end big money’s grip on politics, an issue that lies at the core of the debate on freedom and equality.

1 Hegel: Social and Political Thought. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://www.iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/

2 Steven Horwitz. Hayek and Freedom (1 May 2006) https://fee.org/articles/hayek-and-freedom

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

Well-being Should Replace Growth as the Measure of a Country’s Success

Posted on December 1, 2019 by greg

Happiness is the feeling that power increases – that resistance is being overcome,” observes Nietzsche.  Happiness can exist without well-being, but well-being can’t exist without happiness. It leads us to physical and emotional aspects which every person is trying to blend into a single and harmonious mixture.  Well-being is the experience of health, happiness, and prosperity. It includes having good mental health, high life satisfaction, and a sense of meaning or purpose. Well-being is something sought by just about everyone, because it includes so many positive things – feeling happy, healthy, socially connected, and purposeful – about just feeling well. For example, higher levels of well-being are associated with decreased risk of disease, illness, and injury; better immune functioning; speedier recovery; and increased longevity. Individuals with high levels of well-being are more productive at work and are more likely to contribute to their communities.

We are told that structural barriers to aspiration, achievement and contentment will melt away in our fantasy “choice” economy. Underneath the freedom of always being your own boss is the reality of fiscal precarity mixed with never having enough time for yourself. All happiness and dissatisfaction is reduced to lack of positive attitude. Since social class is no longer relevant, everybody ends up with the socio-economic position they deserve. This produces a chronic sense of self-blame, unease, anxiety and self-recrimination, with individuals having nobody to blame but themselves for not being famous, very rich or more attractive. The absurdity of the situation is that you can play the neoliberal game to perfection, and still end up with very little in return. Positive psychology enables a new happy subjective perspective from where happiness, rather than a long-term objective, is considered to be a precondition of work, a radical new form of human capital.

In liberal market economies like the US and UK, the gains of growth are increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the few, with average living standards stagnating. The IMF now suggests that inequality undermines growth itself – so the neoliberal approach to maximizing social welfare is fundamentally self-defeating. A rising tide doesn’t lift all boats. On the contrary, alleviating poverty and inequality need to be core and explicit goals of macroeconomic policy. Instability and insecurity are also hugely damaging to well-being. For example, the New Economics Foundation’s analysis of European data found that the difference in well-being between temporary and permanent workers was actually greater than that between temporary workers and the unemployed. If this seems surprising, that’s perhaps because we so drastically underestimate the anxiety and stress caused by insecurity. The promotion of ‘flexible labor markets’ in the name of growth and competitiveness may therefore not make us better off if it leads to the proliferation of insecure work.

A recent paper by economists at the London School of Economics even suggested that capitalist instability might help to explain why well-being has failed to increase over recent decades in countries like the US and UK. Because people are loss-averse, the dislocation of the busts far outweighs the welfare gains of the booms. So, well-being remains stagnant over time. On that basis, as argued by Gus O’Donnell in a recent report for the Legatum Institute, a well-being approach would place stability ahead of growth in the order of economic priorities – with implications for things like financial regulation. The crucial importance of our relationships with others for well-being challenges the individualism of the status quo. Research has now firmly established that both personal relationships (e.g. the amount of face-to-face time we have with friends and family) and social relationships (e.g. social cohesion or trust) are critical drivers of well-being.1

The economic elite claim neoliberal capitalism promotes human well-being, economic efficiency, and personal freedom. The new corporate values of globalization were normalized through a doublespeak, selling commercialization and free market choices as democracy while redefining the shape and functions of the state. In a crisis, conflict between the integrity of the financial institutions, on one hand, and the well-being of citizens on the other, the former is privileged. This system claims the common good depends entirely on the uncontrolled egoism of the individual, and especially on the prosperity of the corporation, hence freedom for corporations consists of freedom from responsibility and commitment to society. With these ideas now discredited, it’s time to devise a new narrative to guide our economies in a way that prevents neoliberalism’s excesses, promotes universal well-being as an economic imperative and ensures nationalism doesn’t once again win the battle of ideas.

There are many aspects to well-being. Emotional wellness implies the ability to express emotions appropriately, adjust to change, cope with stress in a healthy way, and enjoy life despite its occasional disappointments and frustrations. Intellectual wellness is a state in which your mind is engaged in lively interaction with the world around you. Environmental wellness is the capability to live in a clean and safe environment that is not detrimental to health. Social wellness is the ability to relate well to others, both within and outside the family unit. Occupational wellness means successfully integrating a commitment to your occupation into a total lifestyle that is satisfying and rewarding. Financial wellness includes your objective state of wealth, your behaviors as they relate to your state of wealth, your subjective perception of your state of wealth and your satisfaction with your state of wealth.

Consumers can experience financial well-being – or a lack of it – regardless of income. It’s a highly personal state, not fully described by objective financial measures. Instead, well-being is defined as having financial security and financial freedom of choice, in the present and in the future. People who are struggling financially often have poorer diets, can fear losing their homes, and typically experience strong feelings of shame about not being able to provide for themselves and their families. They also have higher rates of absence from work. Being born in rich countries like Canada and the US with increasing GDP growth and prosperity doesn’t bring happiness if it comes with more risk and uncertainty. The etiology of stress is increasing income inequality and wage stagnation for the working class as well as the long-term deterioration in employment opportunities that have led to intergenerational decline in economic security. 

Sustainability is essentially about maintaining Earth’s ecological and other biophysical life-support systems. If these systems decline, human population well-being and health will be jeopardized. Technology can buy time, but nature’s bottom-line accounting cannot be evaded. We must live within Earth’s limits. The state of human population health is thus a central consideration in the transition towards sustainability. Although a well-being approach is unavoidably anthropocentric, this perspective also provides powerful support for efforts to keep the economy within ecological limits. If, as economist JK Galbraith argued over 50 years ago, welfare in developed societies has more to do with fair distribution than growth – and if, as we have seen, our quality of life is not primarily a function of what we consume – then protecting the environment need not be at odds with promoting human well-being. The optimal solution, however, lies with governments, society and individuals – and requires changes in behavior, technologies and practices to enable a transition to sustainability.

Neoliberals emphasize that the role of government is to create a good business climate rather than look after the well-being of the population at large. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market supposedly ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. It is important to establish the differences between inequalities and inequities in health. Inequalities refer to perceived and measurable differences that exist in health conditions, or are related to differences in the access to prevention, cure or rehabilitation of health (inequalities in health care). Health inequities, on the other hand, refer to inequalities that are considered to be unjust or that stem from some form of injustice, that are socially produced. It reflects on a society how it translates existing inequalities and differentiates them into just or unjust ones, and this translation varies among societies. The conditions for formulating concrete political actions aimed at minimizing existing inequalities emerge at the moment when inequalities become inequities.

“The real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions that appear to be both neutral and independent, to criticize and attack them in such a manner that the political violence that has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them,” observes Michel Foucault. Well-being is not just a luxury for good economic times. The well-being of the community depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. Reducing poverty and promoting equality are more important goals than simply increasing the size of the economy – new data shows that stability is better than growth. More fundamentally, it helps to remind us that markets and growth should only ever be tools that improve the well-being of all, not just serve the interests of an economic elite.

1 Christine Berry (23 April 2014) Well-being is more than a side-show to neoliberal economics.  https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/wellbeing-is-more-than-sideshow-to-neoliberal-economics/

Posted in Global Economy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment