Over the past month I have been reading Hayek's works, and I am noticing how pervasive his ideology is. The recent coup d'etat in Honduras compounded that view. The rhetoric used by the supporters of the regime is starkly reminiscent of Hayek. When they claim that the coup d'etat in Honduras is actually protecting democracy, it might seem contradictory, but thanks to the logic of Hayek, it does make sense; of course, I do not agree with his arguments. The basic premise is that democracy can only exist within liberal society where the free market; the rule of law that is applicable to everyone equally--the 'false universalism' of liberal-capitalism--; and limited popular democracy. Any attempt to regulate the economy and to massify the political will inevitably lead to tyranny of the majority and eventually to authoritarianism; therefore, a strong constitution that brackets off 'substantive' issues is needed to protect 'liberty' from the tyranny of the majority. Due to the political impossibility of agreeing on what the 'public good' is, within a democratic framework, will lead to the political system investing its decisions to a strong-man who has total control of the economy, thus, people's lives. Thus, the overt class politics of Zelaya, wanting to redistribute income and power under the 'guise' of democracy is an unacceptable encroachment on liberty, and goes against the 'laws of the market' leading Honduras to a 'Road to Serfdom'. As Hayek states:
In this sense an act of the duly authorized legislature might be as arbitrary as an act of an autocrat, indeed any command or prohibition directed to particular persons or groups, and not following from a rule of universal applicability, would be regarded as arbitrary. What thus makes an act of coercion arbitrary, in the sense in which the term is used in the old liberal tradition, is that it serves a particular end of government, is determined by a specific act of will and not by a universal rule needed for the maintenance of that self-generating overall order of actions, which is served by all the other enforced rules of just conduct. (Libearlism, Hayek)
Thus, since the policies and objectives of Zelaya were particular and not universally applicable, meaning it recognizes inherent asymmetries in power, it is autocratic even if under the rule of the demos. The implicit assumption in Hayek, and the junta is that they are not exercising their own form of serfdom on the majority of the people. The superficiality of liberalism's formal equality, focusing on negative rights that are easily applied universally to all, condemns millions of people to a very real life of 'serfdom'. Zelaya's politics are more overtly classist, but that does not mean that the normal operations of the liberal-capitalist state isn't classist. Particularly under the neoliberal frame, the state as Marx suggested is ultimately the 'executive committee' of the bourgeoisie; however, because these operations are considered 'normal', and 'rational' they are not considered classist.
Liberal democracy obfuscates, through the democratic franchise, and legalistic process the power of the ruling classes that define what those 'universal' laws are. Perry Anderson's elucidation of Gramsci's thoughts in this work, The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci is instructive. In it, he argues that the enfranchised masses believe that, "they exercise an ultimate self-determination within the existing social order...[that due to] the democratic equality of all citizens in the government of the nation—in other words, [a] disbelief in the existence of any ruling class” (Anderson 30). What Zelaya, Chavez, etc., are doing with their referendums is challenging liberal democracy on its own terms. The elites in these societies know that they the lack critical mass of support among the population and what the new left in Latin America is doing is--within the pluralistic, liberal democratic framework--using the liberal notion of consent=legitimacy, and changing the hegemonic system of oppression. They are exposing to the world the ruling classes that bely liberal-capitalism's 'democracy', that it is a rational and neutral plane from which all interests are equally considered and is ruled by laws and not power/politics. It is no wonder that Allende, Chavez, and Zelaya were overthrown, eventhough they worked within the paradigm of liberal democracy. As Perry Anderson's elucidation of Gramsci's thoughts in this work, The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci, reminds us that:
To forget the ‘fundamental’ or determinant role of violence within the power structure of contemporary capitalism in the final instance is to regress to reformism...Deprived of this, the system of cultural control would be instantly fragile, since the limits of possible actions against it would disappear...[therefore] the ultimate determinant of the power system: force. This is a law of capitalism, which it cannot violate, on pain of death. It is the rule of the end-game situation (Anderson 43).
Indeed, this is what occurred in Honduras, existing capitalist relations were under threat in the country and therefore, the ruling classes had to react at pain of death, or so their pathologies told them. The greatest fear of capital is exactly what Zelaya, and Chavez are doing, mobilizing the subaltern in a counter-hegemonic discourse. Liberal democracy according to Hayek means that, "Democracy is concerned with the question of who is to direct government. Liberalism requires that all power, and therefore also that of the majority, be limited" (Liberalism). The issue, that is not addressed by Hayek, is who is doing the articulation of how government is to be limited. Where does it say that the elite of the society are the sole arbiters of defining what the limits of the state should be? Herein lies the challenge by the left in Latin America to existing liberal-capitalism, as the subaltern are being mobilized against the parasitic elites of their societies who would rather invest their money in condos along Miami beach than reinvesting the profits at home. The subaltern are exacting their democratic prerogative to challenge existing relations, so they are in essence democratizing liberalism. What the proto-revolutionary left in Latin America is doing is challenging and keeping liberal-democracy up to its suppsoed core ideological justification, which is premised on, as elucidated by Abraham Lincoln's famous dictum that the state is ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’.
Zelaya was overthrown, not because he broke the constitution--many presidents do that all the time, and there are legal mechanisms to depose of a leader who is charged of breaking the constitution. The real reason for his sudden, violent overthrow was because his referendum was too much of a immediate, and legitimate threat to existing power relations in the country. If Zelaya was a demagogue as they claim, and if he was unpopular as they claim he was, why overthrow him? If the referendum was going to fail, wouldn't that signal the end of the reformist project, and his political career? It is important to remember, as Anderson points out, proving Gramsci right, that, “it is in the nature of the bourgeois State [and system] that, in any final contest, the armed apparatus of repression inexorably displaces the ideological apparatuses of parliamentary representation [and the judiciary]” (Anderson 76).
Gramsci's analytical framework's predictive powers are reinforced by the difference between the coup d'etat engineered against Chavez in 2002, and Zelaya in 2009. In 2002, when Chavez was overthrown, the subaltern masses poured in from the ghettos that surround Caracas like water into a bowl, culminating in front of Miraflores to demand the return of Chavez. The subaltern in Honduras, in contradiction to The Economist propaganda, have also taken to the streets in the major urban centres of Honduras. Chavez was back in Miraflores three days after his ouster, yet Zelaya remains in limbo, why? The reason is that, as Anderson pointed out earlier, the foundation of the state is force, not ideological power. Ideological power is essential to the long-run viability any hegemonic order, by definition, but once that ideological facade collapses, force and dominance is the end game. In order for Zelaya to have a triumphant return to power like Chavez the military has to be on his side and they are clearly not. Chavez was brought back because there were serious splits within the military. People power alone is not sufficient, people power--the notion of people power is always partial and particular due to 'class conflict'--has to be able transcend its own corporatist interests to convince the members of the armed apparatus that this is the end game and that they are fighting for the losing side of history.
The lessons for progressives should be clear from what is occurring in Honduras. Some racists or ignorant persons may argue that what is happening in Honduras is because it is a 'banana republic' and simply cannot happen here. However, it certainly has been attempted 'here', for example the attempted coup against FDR in 1933-34 by big business. What is happening in Latin America is what a real left should look like, a left that does not accept the naturalization of existing capitalism as is. As Chantal Mouffe, and Ernesto Laclau argue about the sad state of ersatz leftism in the West:
We never thought, through, that discarding the Jacobin friend/enemy model of politics as an adequate paradigm for democratic politics should lead to the adoption of the liberal one, which envisages democracy as a simple competition among interests taking place in a neutral terrain--even if the accent is put on the 'dialogic' dimension. This, however, is precisely the way in which many left-wing parties are now visualizing the democratic process. This is why they are unable to grasp the structure of power relations, and even begin to imagine the possibility of establishing a new hegemony. As a consequence, the anti-capitalist element which had always been present in social democracy...has now been eradicated from its supposedly modernized version...This argument takes from granted the ideological terrain which has been created as a result of years of neo-liberal hegemony, and transforms what is conjunctural state of affairs into a historical necessity. Presented as driven exclusively by the information revolution, the forces of globalization are detached from their political dimensions and appear as fate to which we all have to submit. So we are told that there are no more left-wing or right-wing economic policies only good and bad ones! To think in terms of hegemonic relations is to break with such fallacies. (16).
I hope we can break with such fallacies, and Latin America is providing the light by which we can. However, we must remember that we live in a society of power not of reason.
5/26/09
Our 'popular religion' Part I
Chantal Mouffe wrote, “a hegemonic principle does not prevail by virtue of its intrinsic logical character but rather when it manages to become a ‘popular religion’ ” (309).
What does this mean? Well, in essence, what matters is not the logical/rational rationale behind an ideology, but rather whether or not it captures the popular imaginary of the population. In our society, the 'popular religion' is the belief that "rational" decisions dominate our lives; from the judiciary, business, legislature, and the broader technocracy. The foundation of our modern, liberal "democratic" society is founded on three "inherently rational" beliefs:
- Rule of Law
- Free Market
- Democracy
The 'war on terror' has undermined the belief in the rule of law, the bank bailouts undermined the belief in the free market, and democracy has constantly, however, increasingly undermined through the operation of state capture by dominant capital, via lobbying, corruption, etc. The facade that belies our modern society, "reason" has been losing its veneer over the past decade, and the power that operates behinds it is showing its ugly head.
The rule of law has been fundamentally undermined by the Bush and Obama administrations. The Bush administration by abandoning human rights in the interests of American corporatist interests-I am under no illusions, human rights also served American interests, but in a different guise. The Bush Administration's 'torture memos' that supposedly gave the administration the legal cover to engage in torture; this highlights how irrational a belief in the " cold rationality" of the law is, and how utterly useless the law can be when it can be so easily manipulated by opportunistic politicians and lawyers. Never-mind, that the Bush Administration also undermined the efficacy of international law by illegally invading Iraq on false pretenses. The 'popular religion' propping up the liberal system is based on the belief that we live in a system of laws that apply to everyone, regardless of power, and interest. Unfortunately-or-fortunately, that belief has been eroded by the corrosive power of raw, unbridled jingoistic-capitalist power.
The Obama Administration has accentuated the collapse of the rule of law, by denying the American people, and people of the world justice. Obama wants to "look forward, without looking back" or some nonsense akin to that statement. How can a nation, which prides itself on its constitutionalism, and its adherence to the rule of law, let criminals go free? A dangerous precedent is being set by the constitutional-scholar president, if you engage in illegal activity, and you are powerful enough, you will get away with it. The slippery slope towards tyranny has begun. What could be another motive for Obama doing this? Possibly to cover his own cards, see Obama has not actually changed much of the rules of the Bush Administration's 'war on terror' game. Obama may be scared that if he puts on trial the criminals in the former administration, he along with his advisors could be next-just because he is a Democrat does not mean he cannot be a criminal.
The free market is supposed to be the aspect of politics that cannot be fundamentally questioned in our new "consensus" democracy. Indeed, the very notion of the "Third Way" and of "consensus" is to denote that the capitalist-market society is hegemonic, and unquestionable. The free market and property, it is argued by "free market fundamentalists", is the foundation of our very civilization and our freedoms; to reduce the scope of the market, or constrain property is to lead to tyranny-a la Hayek.
September 11th, conservatives like to argue changed everything. It exposed that America was "asleep", and did not recognize that it was at war. This has a kernel of truth in it, it cannot be denied that Bush was on vacation at his Texas ranch-only seven months into his presidency-and was handed a memo explicitly warning that Al Qaeda wanted to attack inside the United States, and choose to ignore it. However, Katrina also changed everything. The real tyranny, the tyranny of free market capitalism, of a absent welfare state, the latent racism in American society manifested itself on the roofs of New Orleans, in the floating cadavers scattered across the city. For the first time Americans were exposed to the biting poverty of the "ghetto". The classist society-where freedom exists for the few, while real tyranny of poverty and hopelessness for the many-is the real result of "free market capitalism". The free market, left to its own devices reinforces already existing winners power, power begets power, and leaves the poor in a competitive struggle for scarce jobs, lower wages, and debt. Indeed, it should be of no surprise the United States is a much more unequal, and poorer society than it was in 1980. I understand that some will retort that is an outrageous statement, but the standard of living rising in the US since that time has been due, primarily, to consumer debt and not real income, which has been stagnant and even declining. September 11th was an aberration, Katrina is a manifestation of a daily tragedy.
Giovanni Arrighi argues that financialization of an economy signals its autumn period, and springtime for another economy. The Bush tax cuts, along with the Reagan tax cuts was supposed to increase investment in the economy. However, capital seeks the highest returns, and with so much extra cash they invest that extra income into the markets. It is forgotten that prior to the Great Depression, we also had a supply-side, Republican policy that lead to speculation on the markets. The endemic crisis inherent within capitalism began to grow ever-deeper under the Bush reign, underconsumption. However, it was a different form of crisis, unlike traditional crisis' of underconsumption and overproduction, the American consumer was still able to buy due to ample consumer credit, the importation of cheap Chinese goods and credit, and access to house equity. Under the Bush years the "ownership society" was becoming a reality, however, we now know how this was occurring-subprime.
By 2008, the deck of cards, the supposedly AAA derivatives that propped up the multi-trillion system began to collapse. The SEC was not doing its job, it lacked the laws, powers, but most importantly the will to investigate. The market was literally was allowed to go forth, however, this was the modern "free market" where corporations with massive power both economically and politically were able to manipulate and strong-arm everything in its path in the vainglorious path to riches. The banks cared only for profits, and it did not matter who it trampled on to get those profits. The bankers, traders, and other parasites became the new gods in our society. However, as my previous blogs show, on Veblen and Krugman, such a society was essentially a society that idolized the 'scam artist'. This idolization of the parasite can be seen with such guru-ideologies as Richard Florida's "Creative Class", and the celebrity-ization of anti-socialities on Donald Trumps "The apprentice". This accords with Veblen's argument that the labourer, the one who creates goods is looked down upon. Indeed, in the United States, the source of accumulation, the working class, is increasingly genderized and racialized. In addition, the belief that we have transcended the "class economy", or the "post-materialist" society is based on the debt economy based on the denial of a higher standard of living of people in the third world who send us the debt with their blood, sweat, and tears.
To be continued...
What does this mean? Well, in essence, what matters is not the logical/rational rationale behind an ideology, but rather whether or not it captures the popular imaginary of the population. In our society, the 'popular religion' is the belief that "rational" decisions dominate our lives; from the judiciary, business, legislature, and the broader technocracy. The foundation of our modern, liberal "democratic" society is founded on three "inherently rational" beliefs:
- Rule of Law
- Free Market
- Democracy
The 'war on terror' has undermined the belief in the rule of law, the bank bailouts undermined the belief in the free market, and democracy has constantly, however, increasingly undermined through the operation of state capture by dominant capital, via lobbying, corruption, etc. The facade that belies our modern society, "reason" has been losing its veneer over the past decade, and the power that operates behinds it is showing its ugly head.
The rule of law has been fundamentally undermined by the Bush and Obama administrations. The Bush administration by abandoning human rights in the interests of American corporatist interests-I am under no illusions, human rights also served American interests, but in a different guise. The Bush Administration's 'torture memos' that supposedly gave the administration the legal cover to engage in torture; this highlights how irrational a belief in the " cold rationality" of the law is, and how utterly useless the law can be when it can be so easily manipulated by opportunistic politicians and lawyers. Never-mind, that the Bush Administration also undermined the efficacy of international law by illegally invading Iraq on false pretenses. The 'popular religion' propping up the liberal system is based on the belief that we live in a system of laws that apply to everyone, regardless of power, and interest. Unfortunately-or-fortunately, that belief has been eroded by the corrosive power of raw, unbridled jingoistic-capitalist power.
The Obama Administration has accentuated the collapse of the rule of law, by denying the American people, and people of the world justice. Obama wants to "look forward, without looking back" or some nonsense akin to that statement. How can a nation, which prides itself on its constitutionalism, and its adherence to the rule of law, let criminals go free? A dangerous precedent is being set by the constitutional-scholar president, if you engage in illegal activity, and you are powerful enough, you will get away with it. The slippery slope towards tyranny has begun. What could be another motive for Obama doing this? Possibly to cover his own cards, see Obama has not actually changed much of the rules of the Bush Administration's 'war on terror' game. Obama may be scared that if he puts on trial the criminals in the former administration, he along with his advisors could be next-just because he is a Democrat does not mean he cannot be a criminal.
The free market is supposed to be the aspect of politics that cannot be fundamentally questioned in our new "consensus" democracy. Indeed, the very notion of the "Third Way" and of "consensus" is to denote that the capitalist-market society is hegemonic, and unquestionable. The free market and property, it is argued by "free market fundamentalists", is the foundation of our very civilization and our freedoms; to reduce the scope of the market, or constrain property is to lead to tyranny-a la Hayek.
September 11th, conservatives like to argue changed everything. It exposed that America was "asleep", and did not recognize that it was at war. This has a kernel of truth in it, it cannot be denied that Bush was on vacation at his Texas ranch-only seven months into his presidency-and was handed a memo explicitly warning that Al Qaeda wanted to attack inside the United States, and choose to ignore it. However, Katrina also changed everything. The real tyranny, the tyranny of free market capitalism, of a absent welfare state, the latent racism in American society manifested itself on the roofs of New Orleans, in the floating cadavers scattered across the city. For the first time Americans were exposed to the biting poverty of the "ghetto". The classist society-where freedom exists for the few, while real tyranny of poverty and hopelessness for the many-is the real result of "free market capitalism". The free market, left to its own devices reinforces already existing winners power, power begets power, and leaves the poor in a competitive struggle for scarce jobs, lower wages, and debt. Indeed, it should be of no surprise the United States is a much more unequal, and poorer society than it was in 1980. I understand that some will retort that is an outrageous statement, but the standard of living rising in the US since that time has been due, primarily, to consumer debt and not real income, which has been stagnant and even declining. September 11th was an aberration, Katrina is a manifestation of a daily tragedy.
Giovanni Arrighi argues that financialization of an economy signals its autumn period, and springtime for another economy. The Bush tax cuts, along with the Reagan tax cuts was supposed to increase investment in the economy. However, capital seeks the highest returns, and with so much extra cash they invest that extra income into the markets. It is forgotten that prior to the Great Depression, we also had a supply-side, Republican policy that lead to speculation on the markets. The endemic crisis inherent within capitalism began to grow ever-deeper under the Bush reign, underconsumption. However, it was a different form of crisis, unlike traditional crisis' of underconsumption and overproduction, the American consumer was still able to buy due to ample consumer credit, the importation of cheap Chinese goods and credit, and access to house equity. Under the Bush years the "ownership society" was becoming a reality, however, we now know how this was occurring-subprime.
By 2008, the deck of cards, the supposedly AAA derivatives that propped up the multi-trillion system began to collapse. The SEC was not doing its job, it lacked the laws, powers, but most importantly the will to investigate. The market was literally was allowed to go forth, however, this was the modern "free market" where corporations with massive power both economically and politically were able to manipulate and strong-arm everything in its path in the vainglorious path to riches. The banks cared only for profits, and it did not matter who it trampled on to get those profits. The bankers, traders, and other parasites became the new gods in our society. However, as my previous blogs show, on Veblen and Krugman, such a society was essentially a society that idolized the 'scam artist'. This idolization of the parasite can be seen with such guru-ideologies as Richard Florida's "Creative Class", and the celebrity-ization of anti-socialities on Donald Trumps "The apprentice". This accords with Veblen's argument that the labourer, the one who creates goods is looked down upon. Indeed, in the United States, the source of accumulation, the working class, is increasingly genderized and racialized. In addition, the belief that we have transcended the "class economy", or the "post-materialist" society is based on the debt economy based on the denial of a higher standard of living of people in the third world who send us the debt with their blood, sweat, and tears.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
