Jordan Peterson Gets it Wrong Again on Inequality

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

fbclid=IwAR1cZHuBxXZvYFSTO17Vy7h3LxSJ_j-H3YI33K3xuzGqnH3XeI8-kYAixhU

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/05/walmart-ceo-federal-minimum-wage-is-lagging-congress-should-act.html

https://medium.com/@jordanbpeterson/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far-e36c216b3564?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report

Luke Whitington on Equality as a Labor value

above: Grassroots ALP Left Activist, Luke Whitington

The following is an article submitted by left-wing ALP blogger Luke Whitington on what he sees as the abandonment of ideology in the Labor Party.  Luke believes that attempts to distance the ALP and the Left specifically from socialism in the wake of the collapse of Communism in Europe has left the Party and the Left without an 'ideological point of reference.'   Luke is a grassroots ALP member and at this blog we are trying to encourage inclusive and constructive debate on policy, strategy and ideology on the ALP Left.

We encourage debate on these matters here at the blog, and at our Facebook page.  PLS feel welcome to join our Facebook group if you are an ALP Left member or supporter.

see: http://www.facebook.com/groups/102658893193637/

You don’t hear much about equality as a policy aim these days.

You might hear ‘equity’ or ‘social justice’. The PM talks about equality of opportunity.

But I am interested in good old fashioned equality. “Egalite” as the French say.

‘Australian egalitarianism’, the thing that allegedly sets us apart from our European forebears (those of us that have them), and also our Asian neighbours and American cousins. Only the kiwis, our closest siblings, have the same professed national culture of equality, notwithstanding the many cultures that celebrate equality. We seem to have made it a reality more than most societies, yet we are still very unequal, and getting more so every year, as the rich get richer faster than the poor, who are generally just staying poor, if not getting poorer.

I’m interested in equality for many reasons, but essentially it’s just an instinct for me. I chafe at outward manifestations of rank and hierarchy, and I see unquestioned hierarchies of wealth and privilege as the source of so much pain and suffering in our world. My large family taught me about equality of shares, and the importance of the strong being fair and kind to the weak. My schooling was imbued with these values as well, especially at my infants years at Hornsby Heights PS.

I am an inveterate egalitarian. So the works of Hemingway and Orwell which I discovered in high school, my study of ancient Athens and Rome, the twentieth century and of Australian history, my study of historiography, especially Marxist, post-colonial and transnational history has all reinforced my strong belief in the desirability of equality, and the evil consequences of hierarchies.

It has also given me a perspective on what I describe as self-replicating, self-perpetuating hierarchical systems, such as capitalism, nationalism, liberalism and patriarchy.
My political mission, as I see it, in one respect, is to disrupt the accumulation of power in to the hands of fewer and fewer individuals through these self-replicating, expanding systems of control. Einstein wasn’t kidding when he said the most powerful force in the universe was compound interest. The ability of money to attract money, as as social system, agreed to by so many, either willingly or unwillingly, shapes everything we do, and that system keeps expanding, into the farthest reaches of the world. Either for good or ill, it expands, and those with money already continue to accumulate it.
If you want equality you must confront this fact.

So how does that play out in terms of public policy, especially at a provincial level, in NSW State politics?

Well I believe the first thing we need to do is recognise the problem.

Since the end of the Cold War, people in the Labor Party have essentially subscribed to the Fukuyama ‘end of history’ view, helped by Graham Freudenberg’s history of the NSW Branch of the ALP, which deliberately sought to distance Labor from the communist project in order that Labor would in no way go down with that sinking ship. It has left the ALP, including the Left, an ideology free zone. And this has meant there has been no intellectual comeback to the moves to privatise, cut, outsource, eliminate debt, build through public-private partnerships, ‘rationalise’ and corporatise government departments and instrumentalities, ‘monetise’ education services, health services, wildlife and parks services, generally run the State as much like a capitalist enterprise as possible, in the name of efficiency.

The unwitting consequence is of course that all the human relationships, and our relationship with the land and air and water becomes one of exploitation and hierarchy. Everyone gets used to thinking in terms of structures and titles. That guy is a manager. The other is a worker. She’s on this much and I’m on this much because she is higher up, she earns more money for the enterprise. This land is owned by this state or private owned corporation, and therefore is blocked to you, unless you have our permission. These are all socially constructed, highly contingent relationships, which rely on mental architecture that is ‘naturalised’ in a capitalist, nationalist, liberal system. But there is nothing ‘natural’ about any of it. From a sociological point of view, it is robust because the systems are self replicating. But, as we’ve seen in Greece, Rome, Iceland and elsewhere, when people stop believing that they’re part of an imagined community with rules about ownership and control and proper social behaviour, the whole system can collapse in an afternoon.

If we can understand that power is centrifugal then we can start to implement policies that redistribute power, and stop pursuing policies that help the small numbers of men accumulate a lot of it. We can recognise that despite it being regarded as a natural condition of life and society, capitalist property relations, and nationalist political relations are contingent and historical, liable, like all historically contingent and socially constructed structures, to sudden death or slow decay. So, if we wish to perpetuate our society and our culture, and protect our natural resources and our physical bodies, we must act collectively to control and master the impersonal but impressive systems that dictate so much of what we do. Instead of living ‘under’ capitalism, or ‘under’ a Government, let us live ‘over’ capitalism and ‘over’ our Governments. Let our governments be an expression of democratic control over our systems of wealth creation and trade. And if necessary, let our culture and our society be an expression of democratic control over our governments! Because, for many of our citizens, ‘Government’ has not represented anything helpful or useful to their lives, and in fact has been a threat and a danger to their health and wellbeing.


Luke Whitington is an ALP Left grassroots activist and blogger based in New South Wales.