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

Labor must draw lessons from Electoral Defeat - But not Compromise its Values

Sco-Mo ; supposedly 'the every-man's politician'

Dr Tristan Ewins

Labor has lost what had been seen as an unlosable election. How could everything go so wrong? How could the polls have got it all so wrong?

Firstly, here, is the United Australia Party vote and Clive Palmer’s money. Regardless of whether he achieves a Senate seat, Palmer is channeling roughly 3.5% of the vote in the form of Liberal preferences.   What can Labor do about ‘big money’ in politics?   Nothing straight away ; but over the long term the rules must be changed so billionaires cannot ‘buy their way into parliament’. Or otherwise 'harvest preferences' for the Conservatives.  Labor needs to run hard on this over the long term.

Secondly, there was the re-invention of Scott Morrison – as ‘Sco-Mo’.  ‘Sco-Mo’ was supposed to be ‘an everyman’s politician’.  With his baseball cap ; at various sporting events ; a dad and a Christian. 

This may have been clearly shallow for many of us ; but obviously it gelled with a great number of people. The Liberals chose to focus on ‘the character of Sco-Mo’ and to distract from the dysfunction within ‘the Liberal Team’.  The strategy was reinforced in Newscorp media over months.  Labor failed to smash this invented idea of ‘Sco-Mo the every-man's politician’ when it should have tackled it head on.

Thirdly: the Liberals turned to all the usual prejudices against Labor. The propaganda asserted ‘Labor can’t handle money’ ; and warned of  ‘the Bill Australia can’t afford’.  The fear campaign was not sufficiently interrogated in the media ; and ultimately it worked.  Labor failed to establish that deficits have continued under the Liberals – and much more than necessary because of measures enhancing the incomes of the –already-rich; and that a deficit was in fact necessary under Rudd in order to stimulate the economy and avoid recession.

In fact there was a narrow base to much of Labor’s tax reform.  Measures on franking credits affected less than 5% of the population.  But Labor did not establish this in the public consciousness  either.

Further, there is the melding of neo-liberal Ideology and the legacy of 80s ‘reconciliation politics’.   

The Hawke-Keating governments delivered Medicare, superannuation and various tax reforms.  But they also consolidated in the public consciousness that class conflict was ‘bad’.  And it was up to unions to ‘take a hit’ with wage restraint for the sake of the economy ; but without the delivery of anything ‘Nordic’ in return.  The problem was that once the unions traded away a general right to withdraw labour, and conceded to enterprise bargaining – as its position further weakened it had little else to bargain with.  And ‘reconciliation’ was seen as organised labour’s responsibility to be flexible in response to ‘employer needs’.

The ALP started talking about reducing the number of days lost to strikes as a virtue in of itself ; when in fact it was also a signal of a weakening movement.  Where the legitimacy of industrial action itself had been reduced to an impression of ‘disruption, thuggery, and unnecessary inconvenience to the public’.    Here all redistribution is also reduced to ‘the politics of envy’. 

The Liberals speak of “a fair go for those who have a go”.  But was Morrison arguing that cleaners, nurses, child care workers, aged care workers, teachers – do not ‘have a go’?  This is the same kind of warped take on ‘meritocracy’ which ‘naturalises’ privilege and inequality.   But Gina Rinehart did not ‘work her way to prosperity’.  And yet inheritance taxation is still stigmatised as a ‘death tax’ ; and this also featured in Liberal disinformation and scare campaigns.

Morrison tried to ‘shame’ Shorten for ‘not looking a man on a $200,000 income in the eye’ that he was increasing his tax by 2 per cent. (!)  Shorten should have responded strongly that the flattening of the tax system had to stop ; and everyone else was paying the price.  But he did not confront Morrison directly on this.  This was a wasted opportunity that let Morrison off the hook in constructing his ‘meritocratic mythology’. 

For decades the ALP was also complicit in the politics of ‘small government’.  Breaking that consensus was always going to be difficult after all this time.   As things are reform here has to be slow, deliberate and cautious.  But without such a plan Labor cannot achieve any significant reform agenda.

Also there was the question of Morrison’s alleged Christianity and the case of Israel Folau.  Themes of ‘freedom of religion’ could have been a real sleeper issue which influenced a significant number of votes.  Labor needs to balance freedom of religion with anti-discrimination measures. Much scripture in many faiths contains elements which grate against the grain of modern liberal society.  But effectively repressing the expression of the contents of scripture might simply consolidate a significant portion of ‘the Christian vote’ in the Conservative camp.  There’s a clash of liberties and rights which simply cannot be resolved: it can only be negotiated.  But even accepting religious freedoms, there will be no ‘turning back the clock’ on minority rights when it comes to issues like  equal marriage.   At the same time we cannot make it easy for the Conservatives to 'divide and conquer'.

This is a devastating loss for Labor. It amounts to a victory of fear over hope and vision.  But Labor cannot give in.  It needs to draw tactical and strategic lessons without abandoning its values.  Labor cannot give in on the project of re-structuring the tax mix to pay for social wage and social insurance measures.   Next time Labor needs to look at tax reform in the vicinity of 1% to 1.5% of GDP: but squarely aimed at the top 10% demographic.   And Labor needs to establish that the remainder will not be adversely affected.   With the exception that superannuation tax concessions still need to be tackled ; and may cost the Budget tens of billions into the future if this is not done. And perhaps with the additional exception of a dedicated progressive levy to fund a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme.  The Aged Care Royal Commission should provide momentum.

Labor also needs to establish that a ‘flattening of the tax system’ means that most of us pay proportionately more: not just through the tax system itself ; but also as a consequence of the user pays which ensues.

The coming term will be marked most likely by economic crisis – intensified by the trade war between the US and China.  And by the moral imperative of responding to the Royal Commission on Aged Care.  If the Liberals take Australia into recession Labor needs to punish them on this relentlessly.  And ‘burst the bubble’ of ‘Liberal economic management’.  In addition to pressing hard for a full implementation of Royal Commission recommendations on Aged Care, Labor needs to continue focusing on restoration of funding for the NDIS and Gonski education recommendations.  Next time we need to provide certainty that we will legislate for a higher minimum wage ; and also address the income of low-wage workers more broadly.  (that includes through the social wage)

Most importantly Labor needs to debunk the Liberals’ warped construction of ‘meritocratic Ideology’.   Labor needs to establish that all kinds of people work hard ; and we should not be naturalising privilege.  This is a core Ideological battleground which Labor must contest if it wants to embrace policies involving distributive justice.  And to make sure the public is fully aware of the arguments next time the entire movement needs to begin campaigning on these principles and issues immediately.  We have three to four years and we cannot afford to waste a single day.

Finally there is the question of the labour movement and broader social movements’ response to inevitable Conservative austerity.   Progressive social forces need to prepare for a defensive fight against austerity ; and continue the fight for wage justice at the industrial level.

The danger is that Labor will retreat into a conservative ‘small target’ strategy.  Instead Labor needs to draw tactical and strategic lessons while remaining true to its values.