above: Jordan Peterson ; simplistic arguments on socialism
Dr Tristan Ewins
Jordan Peterson has
made another intervention ; arguing against ‘equity politics’ as opposed to
what passes for ‘equality of opportunity’ in Western societies. For his own
purposes he defines ‘equality’ as ‘equality under the law’ and ‘meritocracy’ as
far as it has progressed in Western society. (we could also add free, universal and equal
suffrage ; amongst whose most early ardent advocates were socialists)
By contrast ‘equity’ is argued as inferring ‘equality of outcome'. (for some the goal is even role reversal)
Because the main focus on the Left these days
appears to be gender, Peterson focuses on gender also. Along the way he makes some interesting
points. (and also some shallow, Conservative assertions)
Amongst the “interesting”
points:
- Only
a tiny proportion of men actually occupy positions in the ‘ruling class'
- Corporate
Affirmative Action in Sweden has had almost no impact on the prospects and
lives of working class women.
- · ‘Equity’
can be interpreted as ‘sameness’: but men and women may not freely choose to be
‘the same’ if given the choice.
- ·
Some
women accept a ‘trade off’ of free time for lower incomes ; and that is an
acceptable choice.
- ·
Further ; providing OPPORTUNITY doesn’t
mean women will take those opportunities
; and old patterns in the labour market may be replicated here and there even
after significant efforts to ‘open the way’. (eg: Peterson mentions Mathematicians,
Engineers, Physicists)
- ‘Sameness’ is not the same as ‘equality’ or ‘justice’.
But in response: it is legitimate to break down
barriers to women’s (and men’s) participation in non-traditional realms ;
without creating new stereotypes, disincentives and barriers for either sex.
Peterson argues that “the
Equity Doctrine” “has gone too far”. He seems to assume that ‘Western
meritocracy’ is the best system ; with (in fact extreme) inequality as
functional to the creation of prosperity.
But many Socialists themselves have assumed ‘perfect equality’ is unachievable
and undesirable, even under socialism. Social
Democratic Marxists Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein variously made that point
that for the foreseeable future there would remain differences of remuneration
based on skill, effort, and the undesirable and unpleasant nature of some
labour.
Whatever you think of
‘communism in practice’ the ultimate (theoretical)
‘communist goal’ assumes free and non-alienated labour ; where there is
abundance ; and labour has become ‘life’s prime want’ ; and diverse and
fulfilling in nature. This principle can
inform policy today ; but without true abundance it cannot be fully realised.
There are other
questions as well. Such as ‘co-ercive
laws of competition’ as they apply not only to enterprises, but also to
nation-states. (competition can drive
less desirable labour and social conditions) And resultant economic forces
mitigate against the retreat of alienating human labour.
Further, the welfare
state itself demands an economic base ; and as the Swedes showed , this was
best supported by policies ensuring full employment.
In practical terms, though,
those socialist principles can be
furthered through educational, social and cultural opportunity ; voluntary job
rotation ; a reduced working week and opportunities for fulfilling voluntary
labour. And the viability of which can
be supported by a strong social wage, and regime of social insurance.
Peterson argues “the
Left can go too far” ; and he mentions the Soviets ; Maoists ; the Khmer Rouge,
Cuba and today’s Venezuela. What this
has to do with the feminism he discusses (which seems to be his central focus) is
lost on this writer. Also missing in
this grandiose dismissal is any consideration of ‘capitalist atrocities’. Wars
such as World War One with tens of millions killed; the massacres of over half
a million in Indonesia in the 1960s ; and over 300,000 in Guatemala in the
1980s.
To that we could add atrocities and oppression elsewhere in Central and
South America. And the War in Vietnam ;
which spilled over into the US bombing of Cambodia and Laos ; destabilising
Cambodia with the consequent rise of the Khmer Rouge.
And indeed while the
current Venezuelan Government is not ideal, its developing inclination to repression
is informed by foreign intervention and destabilisation, including sanctions
and direct support for an usurper against the elected government. Venezuela’s actual policies (support
co-operatives ; support for public education, housing and health ; socialise
oil profits) are not at all ‘extreme’ in the ‘wide sweep’ of history. Venezuela’s future must be decided by the Venezuelans
(UN involvement in elections may be acceptable) ; and not by US intervention.
But the real problem with Peterson, here, is that any robust democratic
socialist program is associated with ‘the Left going too far’ ; and hence
rejected out of hand. Peterson assumes
an essential link between socialism and totalitarianism which does not stand up
in the face of various other examples ; such as the Austro-Marxist experience
between 1917 and 1934.
The connection Peterson tries to draw between the ‘equity politics’ he
discusses – and Stalinism – is also threadbare.
To conclude ; some ‘equity’
policies – such as quotas applied to representative government – may be
workable and desirable ; but too cumbersome to introduce to every sector of
society. And it begs the question why we
are not considering the place of social class in all of this. Which is the main factor in discrepancies of economic
and political power.
Also, the most efficient correctives for inequality may well go beyond quotas. For instance ; Subsidies for ‘feminised’
sectors such as Aged Care and Child Care which typically involve exploitation. Or comprehensive universal and socialised
health care. A regulated labour market
and industrial liberties. A fully funded
and first class public education system, including free Tertiary education. And
the opening up of ‘education for active and critical citizenship’ to everyone ;
including a balanced consideration of the entire political spectrum, and the
promotion of political activism for a healthy democracy.
Again as Sweden
demonstrated during its ‘golden age’ : a strong and comprehensive welfare
state, social wage, social insurance regime – can provide for real social
security and happiness. And that social
security also makes it easier for industries to modernise ; with transitions ‘softened’
by re-education and training ; and by active industry policies which seek to maintain
full employment ; and create new jobs for displaced workers. (where possible
making the most of existing skills sets.)
Peterson tries to construct some simplistic opposition between “equal
opportunity/meritocracy” and “equity/equality of outcome”.
In fact there is a ‘democratic
socialist middle ground’ here.
Meritocracy and equal
opportunity are often myth-like. Schools
are not equally-resourced. Class often
dictates educational opportunity. Gross
inequality results in a ‘capitalist aristocracy’ dominated by billionaires –
who have political access and influence ordinary citizens can barely dream of. The heights of power in the US particularly are
influenced by nepotism and private fund-raising. (by capitalists)
Meanwhile, in the US
especially a ‘middle class’ is constructed as a political support base ; but
even these could be rendered destitute through unanticipated health expenses
where there is not sufficient health insurance.
The postulated ‘middle class’ (much of which is working class in fact) is
‘disciplined’ through fear of descent into the working poor (Walmart pays
$11/hour and that is a big improvement on the past ; the federal minimum wage in the U.S.
[is] $7.25 ) ; and the working poor are ‘disciplined’ through fear of
descent into utter destitution.
Further ; to provide a more
‘global’ perspective: In early 2019, Oxfam
claimed that the World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%.
With appropriate social
wage, welfare and social insurance policies ; as well as labour market
liberties and regulation ; and a genuinely and strongly progressive tax system
; it is possible to have much greater equality without resort to ‘extremes’. The establishment of a robust mixed economy,
and support for co-operative enterprise ought not be rendered ‘marginal’ either
; and the Mondragon experience in Spain is instructive. It is also arguable that such combined policies
can be more effective than cumbersome quotas applied to every aspect and corner
of society. Though in certain instances gender quotas have proved very effective
; for instance in promoting women’s representation in Australia’s Parliamentary
Labor Party.
In short ; Peterson
tries to construct an opposition between ‘equality of opportunity/meritocracy’
and ‘equity/equality of outcome’. He
ignores any potential ‘democratic socialist middle ground’; and he virtually
ignores the aspect of social class which is fundamental to economic inequality
; and crosses lines of gender, race, ethnicity and so on. His resort to examples of Stalinism and
Maoism is shallow and simplistic. It is true that parts of today’s Left deter
internal dissent through the threat of ostracism ; and sometimes it is taken
too far. But with regard the ‘democratic
Left’, Peterson’s references to Stalinism and Maoism would appeal only to the
easily convinced and Ideologically prejudiced.
Here’s to genuine equality of opportunity
; and to such a degree of economic equality that would put paid to the ‘the
capitalist aristocracy’ ; lift working
people up from exploitation and poverty ; and empower ordinary citizens in
democracy.
Bibliography
