freedom

Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/menu.inc).

Putin’s New Iron Curtain

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 23/03/2022 - 1:00am in

Let us recognize that freedom and democracy are both impossible if we do not take responsibility for the other. This is the call of ethics. It is required to imagine another future, to free the world from arrogant barbarism, to break out of the world in which we now find ourselves....

Read More

Authority as Freedom: Aretha Franklin at the Kennedy Center, 2015

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2022 - 12:00am in

Tags 

art, freedom, Women

When the curtains opened in the Kennedy Center forty-eight years later to reveal Aretha Franklin in a floor-length mink with a glittering clutch purse in her hand, they didn’t herald a performance: they announced an epiphany....

Read More

Turkey’s Final Exam on Freedom

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 13/01/2022 - 12:00am in

Photo credit: Gokce Atik / Shutterstock.com In September 2010, several years before serving as the prime minister of Turkey (2014–16),...

Read More

Renegade Predictions 2022

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 31/12/2021 - 5:01pm in

A selection of Renegade Inc. guests mull over events of the past year and make suggestions as to what we can expect for the year ahead.

The post Renegade Predictions 2022 appeared first on Renegade Inc.

Renegade Predictions 2022

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 31/12/2021 - 5:01pm in

A selection of Renegade Inc. guests mull over events of the past year and make suggestions as to what we can expect for the year ahead.

The post Renegade Predictions 2022 appeared first on Renegade Inc.

To reclaim the state, we have to start with ourselves

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 21/12/2021 - 1:30pm in

Tags 

freedom

One of the joys of living is reading brilliant writing and I read a lot as a consequence. Not all of my reading is brilliant though, as you might expect, given my profession. As a young postgraduate student, one of the best books I read, among many, was – Labor and Monopoly Capital – which was written by – Harry Braverman – and published by the Monthly Review Press in 1974. It was a prescient piece of writing and is still 100 per cent relevant to the struggles today for working people against capital – both industrial and financial. It provides us with a path to resistance. It also points us in the direction of identifying the problems in the world today. And those problems start at the most elemental level – us.

Further reading

I have written about these themes before and these posts are indicative of many:

1. Why progressive values align more closely with our basic needs (January 21, 2019).

2. Neoliberalism corrupts the core of societal values (March 28, 2018).

3. Why Uber is not a progressive development (August 16, 2016).

4. The mass consumption era and the rise of neo-liberalism (January 7, 2016).

5. Self-imposed corporate regulations control workers but choke productivity (October 30, 2014).

6. Bullshit jobs – the essence of capitalist control and realisation (September 5, 2013).

7. Sport and doping – the spreading tentacles of capital (February 11, 2013).

8. We need more artists and fewer entrepreneurs (January 10, 2013).

9. The labour market is not like the market for bananas (August 17, 2012).

Harry Braverman

He began his working life as a coppersmith and these trade skills allowed him to work in industry for many years, while, at the same time developing radical frames of references for what he was experiencing.

The way the Great Depression damaged the workers and enhanced capital led him to become politically active in the Young People’s Socialist League.

He crafted his writing skills using a pseudonym (“Harry Frankel”) while the red-baiting antics of the FBI got him sacked from his job at a Steel mill.

Later in the 1960s, he became an editor in a New York-based publishing house (Grove Press) which published the works of the American beats, lots of alternative poetry and produced a literary magazine where the likes of Bertoit Brecht and Albert Camus would be published.

One of the better publishers that is.

He then moved to the managing director’s role at Monthly Review Press, his final paid job.

In 1974, he published the magnificent book – Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century – which traced the way in which Capitalism was impacting on the design of work in America.

Every person who aspires to a Left sensitivity should read this book.

Harry Braverman examined what he termed his “de-skilling” hypothesis where capital systematically restructured labour processes to enhance their control in order to extract higher profits.

He also proposed that commodification was becoming generalised under Capitalism – extending into more and more areas of our ‘social’ lives.

Progressively, these “labour processes” (market-values) subsume our whole lives – sport, leisure, learning, family – the lot.

Everything becomes a capitalist surplus-creating process.

This process has intensified under neoliberalism – it seeks to commodify everything. That is create labour processes that produce commodities for profit.

The spread of the labour process is one of the characteristic features of the last several decades.

Even those activities that have previously been part of our non-working lives – our lives away from the oppression of work – are targets for commodification.

If you read Labor and Monopoly Capital, you will find that Braverman tried to reorientate the debate on the Left back to the essence of work and the dynamics of surplus value production as it affected the way people worked and lived.

He was particularly interested in how workplaces were changing as the corporate structures became more concentrated and politically powerful.

This was the beginning of the period when the Left were becoming obsessed with ‘post modernism’ and losing touch with the essence of the Marxist tradition.

So various dead-ends starting emerging – gender, ethnicity, sexuality. Identity politics!

I am not saying these are dead-ends because of their unimportance. Each of these issues is crucially important. But as the Left splintered into various groups pursuing one identity issue or another, it lost a central organising focus – the class conflict between labour and capital – within which the pursuit of these identity issues would have been more powerful and effective.

With the two trends – an obsession with ‘individualism’ (breaking down the collective and societal understandings of poverty, unemployment etc) and the broadening of the labour processes – many aspects of our society changed fundamentally.

Harry Braverman wrote (p.14):

And finally, the new wave of radicalism of the 1960s was animated by its own peculiar and in some ways unprecedented concerns. Since the discontents of youth, intellectuals, feminists, ghetto populations, etc., were produced not by the “breakdown” of capitalism but by capitalism functioning at the top of its form, so to speak, working at its most rapid and energetic pace, the focus of rebellion was now somewhat different from that of the past. At least in part, dissatisfaction centered not so much on capitalism’s inability to provide work as on the work it provides, not on the collapse of its productive processes but on the appalling effects of these processes at their most “successful.” It is not that the pressures of poverty, unemployment, and want have been eliminated — far from it — but rather that these have been supplemented by a discontent which cannot be touched by providing more prosperity and jobs because these are the very things that produced this discontent in the first place.

Remember this was written in 1974 and he was commenting on the experience of an evolving full employment situation where workers had jobs but the jobs were being redesigned, restructured – call it how you like – into activities that increasingly alienated the workers and increased the surplus value creation for capital.

So, calling for more jobs might sound like a reasonable thing for a Leftist to advocate but our conception of full employment has to be different now to ensure we are not just satisfied with creating work.

Politicians are wont to tell us how many jobs they are creating as if that is a standard to aspire to.

But what Harry Braverman was telling us way back then was that more Capitalism of the evolved state he was commenting on is no way forward.

Contemporary commentary

Fast track to December 16, 2021, and Serbian economist – Branko Milanovic – has written an excellent Op Ed – Why it is not the crisis of capitalism: The sources of discontent – which is a recycled version of an earlier Op Ed from the same author that I read in 2019.

He clearly is influenced by Harry Braverman’s insights (whether knowingly or through a sort of ‘unity of science’ phenomenon) and notes that Capitalism has been very successful:

… both in terms of its geographical span and the expansion to the areas (like leisure time, or social media) where it has created entirely new markets and commodified things that historically were never objects of transaction.

When Harry Braverman was writing, the geographical span of Capitalism was limited by the Soviet bloc, China, Cuba, etc

That has all changed since and even China’s ‘private sector’ produces “80% of value added”.

He also notes the conversion of “non-markets” into surplus-creating (profitable) activities.

People now rent their own cars (uber) or their homes (Airbnb), in addition to a host of other areas of life that were mediated through price-setting markets.

We no longer walk to the shop to buy a pizza – a teenager on a scooter buzzes it to us – for a pittance from the franchise that runs the shop.

The point that Branko Milanovic makes here is that these new forms of capitalist expansion are just an expression of what Karl Marx identified way back then.

In this blog post – The Left confuses globalisation with neo-liberalism and gets lost (April 27, 2016) – I discussed that exact point.

In the – Communist Manifesto – published in 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels discuss the way that discoveries of new lands (America, Rounding the Cape, etc) “opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie”.

They wrote:

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

They were obviously aware of the tendency of capitalism to geographical spread to open up new markets and new spaces to extract raw materials.

The search for new markets and new ways of organising production is not new and has been going on for centuries.

The widening of this push into these non-market areas of life has had a fundamental impact on our thinking.

Branko Milanovic writes:

This does not mean that we would all immediately run to rent our homes or drive our cars as taxis, but it means that we are aware of the financial loss that we make by not doing so. For many of us, once the price is right (whether because our circumstances change or the relative price increases), we shall join the new markets and thus reinforce them.

And so the gig economy has evolved as the most recent manifestation of this market broadening phenomenon.

As Harry Braverman identified in the quote above – we cannot want more of that because it makes us unhappy.

The other point he makes is that while the expansion that Marx and Engels were writing about in the C19th benefitted the elites in Europe and allowed them to appease workers with higher wages, which morphed into the era of mass consumption era, which, in turn, morphed into something even more comprehensive where aspects of our lives that were previously considered ‘non work’ (which meant non capitalist) became markets, with commodities supplied to support.

But as capitalism’s never-ending search for ‘market’ penetration continued the beneficiaries changed.

The most recent period of global expansion has not “benefit disproportionately rich countries and their populations”.

Rather, it has “benefited especially Asia, populous countries like China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia” and created a “gap between the expectations entertained by the Western middle classes and their low income growth”.

This hollowing out of the middle class in advanced nations – which is behind phenomenon such as Brexit, Trump, Yellow Vests, etc – has also been accompanied by a ‘market’ penetration into politics:

The expansion of market-like approach to societies in all (or almost all) of their aspects, which is indeed a feature of advanced capitalism, has also transformed politics into a business activity. In principle, politics, no more than our leisure time, was regarded as an area of market transactions. But both have become so. This has made politics more corrupt.

We now distrust our polity more than ever.

And they lie, cheat, defraud and get away with it.

His overall conclusion is that this “crisis is not of capitalism per se” but rather its uneven geographical spread and the “capitalist expansion to the areas that were traditionally not considered apt for commercialization”.

His solution is to wind back the “field of action” of the capitalist system.

Which is where I diverge.

I think that Karl Marx understood that capitalism had tendencies to ensure that capital as a class could reproduce.

The sort of market penetration into our previously ‘non-market’ lives is not something that can be easily wound back.

The resistance of the capitalist class is one thing.

But as noted above, after several decades of neoliberal penetration into our lives, we – us – have become the problem that needs to be addressed first.

We need to activate along the lines we wrote about in our book – Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World (Pluto Books, September 2017).

But to do that we need to lift our levels of education.

Progressives have to stop saying things like “we need to tax the rich to afford hospital care” or “it is fine for the government to borrow while interest rates are low” or “if our governments are not careful with taxpayers’ money then the financial markets will exact discipline” – and all the rest of the nonsense that many well-meaning commentators pump out to sound erudite.

But all they are doing is maintaining this ‘market penetration’ mentality and distorting our own personal calculations into ‘can we make a buck’ by renting our house out while we go on holiday sort of thinking.

Conclusion

The problem is capitalism.

Because the logic of that system evolves into what we have.

Harry Braverman understood that even though he didn’t live to see the worst of what it has become.

As the first step, education.

Then, reclaim the state.

Then evolve the production and distribution system away from one that needs to colonise every aspect of our lives with ‘markets’.

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2021 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.

Recap of ‘The Rise of Neo-Liberalism and the Decline of Freedom’

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 24/09/2021 - 11:00pm in

In her book fellow YSI member Birsen Filip makes an important and timely contribution by telling the story of neoliberalism and its dramatic rise over the past four decades. She traces its impact on our contemporary way of living, thinking, and being and in so doing demonstrates its elevation to a near law of nature that permeates nearly every aspect of our society. Many of us will be familiar with many aspects she touches upon, but it is galvanizing to see how deeply neo-liberal thinking has penetrated and reshaped our way of being. 

Birsen starts by expounding the pillar upon which neo-liberal thinking rests: negative freedom (chapters 2 and 3). Friedrich Hayek and Friedman developed the idea of negative freedom by defining it as ‘freedom from coercion’ – the liberty to consume, produce and exchange voluntarily –  which stands in contrast to positive freedom (i.e. improving individual self-determination by investing in individuals, communities, environments by the government). It purports that economic freedom in the marketplace (‘freedom to choose’) is a precondition for political and civic freedom (‘right to assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion’ etc). A threat or coercion on economic freedom would mean an infringement on political freedom as well. This expresses itself in the primacy of the marketplace, free individual choice, free fluctuation of prices and not allowing the government or any central entity to infringe on this economic freedom for an apparent collective good (freedom from coercion). 

How this concept of freedom limits the scope of government is treated in chapter 4. Chapter 5 treats the rise of transnational corporations which have been able to take advantage of an ever-increasing scope of the market. In chapters 6 and 7 we vividly see the effect of mass consumption culture on the environment. How private interest stands over public interest in innovation policies is described in chapter 8. Chapter 9 and 10 illustrate the decline of unions and organized labor and the rise of inequality, and chapter 11 the decline of moral and ethical values.  In chapter 12, Birsen returns to the realm of ideas to show how neo-liberal thinking has become entrenched with the academy. 

At the core of the book’s message, Birsen demonstrates a disastrous paradox: the supposed freedom which neo-liberalism promotes is indeed a trap. What Birsen describes is a vortex in which more and more spheres of our lives become caught in. ‘Freedom from’ indeed is not indeed liberating. On the contrary, it is contributing to the decline of freedom; it imprisons and destroys our capacity for imagining alternative pathways and collective action and in doing so it destroys our ability as individuals and societies to confront our problems. We can all sense the writing on that wall, namely the steady decline and destruction of societies and our environment, and yes, of individual freedom. 

What the book offers is how deeply neo-liberal ideas have taken hold of our thinking and penetrated how we perceive ourselves as individuals, how we relate with others. Moreso, it offers a glimpse of how we are eroding our social fabric and destroying our environment by extending the sphere of the market to nearly anything and exploiting the resources of our environment. More deeply it also sheds light on the current malaise and inability to address our global challenges since neo-liberal thinking discounts the ability of collective action (state and unions). 

Birsen offers a hopeful plea that recognizing these entrappings which we all intuitively sense may help lead to a change in mindset and an affirmation vision of our global society and the environment in which we live: Positive freedom.

Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and master’s degrees in economics and philosophy. She has published numerous articles and chapters on a range of topics, including political philosophy, geopolitics, and the history of economic thought, with a focus on the Austrian School of Economics and the German Historical School of Economics. 

BUY THE BOOK

Jay Pocklington is the Manager of the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s Young Scholars Initiative (YSI). He received B.Sc. and M.Sc degrees in economics from Freie Universität Berlin.

Streaming IS Downloading

Published by Matthew Davidson on Sat, 30/06/2012 - 4:15pm in

The way that this issue is framed, even by people who should know better, is profoundly misleading. These are not "anti-downloading measures". Viewing data from a remote machine without first downloading it would be a very neat trick.

It is therefore nonsensical to ask "Is it okay to download this video without the creator's permission?" in this context. The creator has given you this permission. The question we should ask is "Is it okay for the creator (or some intermediary) to take control of my computer in order to delete some data after I've acquired it perfectly legally?"