You are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequences of your choice. Individual freedom expressed in terms of subjective choice, not coordinated or canalised by institutions, moral codes, social forms and relations, generates a collective unfreedom. The world of individual choice is governed by external collective force, the unintended consequences of those choices. Either we generate internal means and mechanisms of collective self-determination as a society or we will be subject to external force. We live in a social world, a world of supra-individual forces. Without collective means and mechanisms of social democratic control, those forces govern us as alien external power. In face of climate change - as external collective force - all the assertions of libertarianism, pluralism and subjective choice in the world will never amount to anything other than a collective unfreedom, for all of the assertions of freedom,
I'm just reading this from Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party:
"Being Green is different to being Labour. It’s a different worldview, outlook and philosophy. While we might inhabit a similar place when it comes to austerity, we are at heart a party of freedom which believes in liberation from the shackles of state authority and the critical balance between people and planet. And we trust the people. We don’t want an authoritarian state, an authoritarian electoral system or an authoritarian party structure."
I agree with pretty much everything else he says. But that everything else is pointless, mere idle words, without the means to translate them into reality, This rejection of 'state authority' and equation of political institutions beyond this vague notion of 'the people' with 'authoritarian' leaves us with a world of subjective choice and plural interests, and supra-individual forces ruling the world as external force, in the absence of collective constraint. There is no sense of authority and collective coordination and rule as a dimension of freedom. This is the libertarian view that rejects all law and institutions above individual choice as inimical to individual liberty, How on earth are you going to establish this critical balance between people and planet without intermediary institutions above the individual? The world is greater than the individual ego. And that world begs a notion of authority. This statement devalues the political, and leaves us with ... consequences and uncontrolled consequences as external force. Sounds just like Milton Friedman's 'free to choose' and external constraint of the market.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/22/greens-labour-jeremy-corbyn
This is disappointing, and merely confirms to me the identity of Greens as a the minority wing of left liberalism, where the well-meaning middle classes go when Labour reformism sails too close to socialism and the failures and inanities of the Liberal Democrats becomes too obvious to ignore. I say left liberalism. The truth is that the same people see themselves as beyond left and right. They are certainly against the left, in the sense of being anti-socialist. But as for being beyond the right, in being able to transcend the status quo by transforming its key institutions ... no, only in their self-image. Liberalism in its decadence in other words, looking at its own handiwork and pretending to be above and beyond it, whilst remaining wedded completely to its essential forms – capitalist modernity is libertarian and plural, culturally, socially, and morally, albeit utterly authoritarian in its core economic forms and structures (curiously, whenever a political movement proposes to restructure that embedded economic power, the Greens become libertarian opponents of political authoritarianism, keeping asymmetrical power relations intact.)
Is socialism 'authoritarian?' How and why? Clarify this, please. Because I am into serious politics, as the field of practical reason (not an impotent idealism from the sidelines). Because I affirm public life, as integral to human fulfillment. Because I see human beings as social beings, and hence freedom as interrelational, requiring forms of the common life (the state as the supreme community of smaller communities). And because I am a socialist, and not a liberal who separates individual and society/community abstractly. Autonomy and authority go together, just as individuality and sociability are two sides of the same human nature. And because freedom is relational, and comes with a principle of authority and constraint. I don’t like the sound of this at all ... the rejection of 'state authority' as such? ... It’s not even liberal (could be liberalism in its decadence, a recoil away from the grown-up world of liberal modernity). It is entirely of a piece with the neutral liberal public sphere that is concerned to maintain the civil peace between competing goods. But it’s empty. Upon what is that subjective choice in the private sphere based, what content does it have (without violating the principle of subjective choice? In other words, it’s libertarian - and something which puts it - notwithstanding assertions to the contrary - on a par with capital's emancipation from all moral, political/governmental, legal, social and ecological constraints. Note the reference to 'the shackles of state authority.' I’m reading Greens openly defending their position in terms of being ‘libertarian’ and ‘plural,’ so my identification of the position set out here as libertarian and plural – fitting precisely the contours of liberal modernity (the very social order that has brought us to the brink of eco-catastrophe) is also their own. That’s not my position, and the pretensions of radicalism on the part of Greens have been exposed. They will call for an end to economic growth, but haven’t got the first idea how to transform the capital system structured on the basis of capital accumulation. Instead, they negate. They negate the system, state authority, ‘the economy’ (that slippery euphemism for the capital system, it is telling how often Greens, like all reformists, refer to ‘the economy.’ It is also telling how they refer generally to ‘industrialism’ and ‘productivism’ and so conflate the difference between the capital system and socialism, merely see the latter as a form of the former. It can be, when the emphasis is upon political abolition/extraction of surplus value, a state capitalism … but … that … is … not … socialism.
I'm looking at this:
'Green liberalism, or liberal environmentalism, is liberalism that includes green politicsinto its ideology. Green liberals are usually liberal on social issues and "green" on economic issues. The term "green liberalism" was coined by political philosopher Marcel Wissenburg in his 1998 book Green Liberalism: The Free and The Green Society. He argues that liberalism must reject the idea of absolute property rights and accept restraints that limit the freedom to abuse nature and natural resources. However, he rejects the control of population growth and any control over the distribution of resources as incompatible with individual liberty, instead favoring supply-side control: more efficient production and curbs on overproduction and over-exploitation. This view tends to dominate the movement though critics say it actually puts individual liberties above sustainability.'
When is a state not a state? as my DOS asked me (oh yes, I was big on the abolition of the state as alienated social power, but always retained the principle of authority: let's take order, law, obligation, legitimacy seriously, please!) Note the reference to 'the shackles of state authority.' You'll be telling me next that 'there's no such thing as society, only individuals' making subjective choices. The kind of thing that has got us into this mess. Against 'authoritarianism?' Except that these are the same people who cite science and fact endlessly as if dictating to government, politics and people, in denial of the existence of individuals as citizens joining together to determine the terms on which they are to be governed. That's what I call authoritarian, the minority lecturing the majority and claiming to speak with the 'voice of nature.' This language is miles away from legitimate principles of authority, from legitimate principles of constraint through self-assumed obligation, and offers no basis to form the kind of (rational-legal-collective) constraint and legitimate authority required to constitute that 'critical balance' between people and planet (or between people themselves for that matter). 'Free to choose,' said Milton Friedman, extolling the virtues of individual subjective choice against the government. Not my view, not remotely my view (such choices are without content, without the supporting infrastructure, social, moral and institutional, autonomy as egoistic self-assertion). Freedom is a collective endeavour, human beings are social beings. How are we going to exercise constraint vis the climate crisis without 'state authority'? In the manner of the above, I argue for the democratic constitution of authority - a libertarian view doesn't do that, and is the counterpart of capital's emancipation from governmental, ethical, social and indeed ecological constraints.
In passing, let me state clearly that I argue strongly for a social self-mediation as against the capital system and its second order mediations, including the 'abstraction of the modern state,' and am all in favour of the restitution of alienated power to the social body - but that requires a coherent strategy - and a principle of authority and legitimate (self-assumed, self-legislated) constraint]. I’m writing on Istvan Meszaros, a political philosopher who was a big influence on my work in the 1990s. Here is a section from my new piece “Meszaros and Social Control.”
This vague cross-class ‘neither left nor right’ approach was taken by Greens in order to ‘broaden their own electoral appeal, in the hope of successfully intervening in the reform process for the purpose of reversing the identified dangerous trends.’ Predictably, the appeal to everyone was found in practice to have appealed to not exactly no-one, but nothing like the mass constituencies required for such parties to become significant players in the political sphere. As members of coalition governments, Green parties have been complicit in enacting neoliberal economic policies that are socially and environmental harmful. And have paid the electoral price of a pragmatism that is so quick to compromise and discard principles. Meszaros thus notes that all such parties became marginalized within a relatively short space of time, a fact which ‘underlines that the causes manifesting in environmental destruction are much more deep-seated than it was assumed by the leaders of these programmatically non-class oriented reform movements.’ The idea that environmentalism as politics could institute a viable alternative to the socialist project has proved to be a reformist illusion. (Meszaros 1995 ch 2). Meszaros is far from denying the importance of the ‘single issue’ around which the Green movement has sought to articulate its reform programmes, describing it as ‘literally vital.’ But he is concerned to show the constraints upon any reformist attempt to make inroads into the power structure and decision-making processes of the established order, arguing that ‘the incontestable imperative of environmental protection turned out to be quite intractable on account of the corresponding necessary restraints which its implementation would have to mean to the prevailing production processes. The capital system proved to be unreformable even under its most obviously destructive aspect.’ (Meszaros 1995 ch 2).
The greens grew in the absence of a genuinely socialist challenge to entrenched power, and they have representation at all levels in politics. But they have nowhere been able to transcend the constraints of reformism. As members of coalition governments, in Germany and in Ireland, for instance, they have been responsible for instituting neoliberal economic policies. They can share George Monbiot’s article condemning neoliberalism all they like. I prefer a structural analysis, and a politics with the structural capacity to act. The Green party represents a relatively small constituency of the left-liberal middle class. They are vehemently anti-socialist, identifying it with industrialism and economic growth. Rather than help develop the socialist insurgence in a ‘degrowth’ direction, they merely reject socialism as such. For the record, as a socialist, I have no trouble at all in relating the growth imperative to the accumulative dynamic at the heart of the capital system. It’s that that socialism looks to uproot, replacing the indirect supply of social labour through the value form with its direct supply via the associated producers. Greens who are against ‘state authority’ emphasise a citizens’ income – how does that work without a legitimate state authority – and a degrowth economics – instituted by who or what? Government? Sounds distinctly authoritarian to me. Making democratic inroads into the power of capital is a bit like that. Or do people think politics is about beautiful souls keeping their hands clean? I don’t think we can waste any more time with environmental reformism and the soft liberal left, protecting the social and natural environment is necessarily anti-capitalist, and requires a whole lot more than the subjective choices of sovereign individuals, libertarianism and pluralism.
The dissolution of public life, just sit by and watch it all implode. Incoherent, OK for messing around at small scale, but incapable of scaling upwards to address the problem, and far short of the comprehensive strategy required to be effective. And no basis for anything like a popular platform - the politics of permanent protest, quickly and easily marginalized. And I'm walking away to focus on constructive work, because this is going nowhere. Just spare me the evasions of being 'beyond left and right,' because they always collapse back on the status quo, for want of the ability to constitute an alternative, institutionally and structurally - an impotent idealism without capacity to act. Most of all, though, it's the patronizing tone of the abuse of Labour supporters that does it for me. Distasteful. Before Christmas, I referred to Greens as a hectoring, lecturing minority, and there are Labour supporters out there who, in offering cooperation, were on the receiving end of some very nasty words, referred to as if they were stupid and incapable of reading, let alone understanding plain English.
“Did you read what Jonathan said *** ****? Because your reply reads like you didn't.”
“There are basic political philosophy courses available at all local colleges that may assist in expanding the parameters.”
“Someone read the letter to *** please.”
“Some folk obviously still don’t get it, try reading the letter again ***, we will not be joining you at labour.”
And so on. Abuse and insult, from people in a party that commands something like 3% at the election. Are these people actually interested in winning support from ordinary folk for their programmes? Or do they just enjoy telling people what to do and what to think? In the name of the freely choosing sovereign individual, of course.
Anyhow, they all got very excited over Jonathan Bartley’s words on how good it is to be Green. They are oblivious to the abuse they hurled against the millions who support Labour. I'd love to see how these lot propose to restrain capital, let alone abolish it, without "state authority" - these are the same people don't forget who are big on big government on climate change. They are utterly utterly incoherent. and they make it easy for climate deniers - who are rightly suspicious of big government on climate action from this bunch of misanthropes.
you tell me how you would enact climate restraint without "state authority" - and tell me too why "state authority" is the same thing as "authoritarianism"? These people are infants. Naivety in politics is an absolute menace. I’ll tell you what I don’t like about ‘state authority’ or ‘big government,’ tiny active vocal minorities who hijack the public purpose to advance their own particular cause. These people assert the authority of natural laws via science and scientists, and then deny the right of people collectively through state authority to give the law to themselves - this is actually an affront to liberals like Kant. And constitutes a real threat to liberty.
"How you would enact climate restraint without "state authority"? "State authority" is NOT the same thing as "authoritarianism". We must rather seek to redefine the state."
Marx nailed these people years ago, when he argued that the counterpart of liberal individualism is the romantic back to nature delusion, they go hand in hand and will do so to the end.
These people play right into the hands of climate deniers. People won't trust them, they are environmental philosopher kings of the worst kind, in that they deny state authority whilst asserting the authority of nature and science, and we know fine well they would impose their solutions on each and all. all small scale in thought and deed, and blocking the big actions we need, which will need "state authority" - read Meszaros, he's good on this, he shows how the Green naturalisation of the (social) ecological crisis plays right into the hands of the capitalist state, constraining people within the continued expansion of the capital system, with people and nature paying the price
I’ve always been a Green, never Labour. The last time I voted Labour at any level was in 1992. So I’m not defending Labour here. I'm specifically interested in this attack on "state authority" from a party that demands government institute a degrowth economy - how does that work under capital? It's incoherent drivel. And it’s a denial of legitimate authority that invites the worst kind of authoritarianism.
Here's why I get annoyed - the tone is off-putting - do these people want to persuade people, involve them as citizens constituting their own democratic authority, or just lecture people?