In a recent post Patrick said, “In short, ‘capitalist democracy’ is conspicuous for its capitalism insofar as it is allowed, in the end, to define both the character and structural contours of democratic theory and practice. Yet to think of capitalist democracy as ‘separate “parts” is to miss the vital integrity of the system’ (Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers), a system that finds philosophical warrant and ideological blessing in the form of Liberalism. Thus Liberalism can countenance the formal granting of political rights but is often blinded to inequalities in the distribution of resources that decisively affect the exercise of such rights (cf. the recent SCOTUS decision in Citizens United). Furthermore, we have what Cohen and Rogers term a ‘demand constraint:’ ‘As a result of their control of investment, the satisfaction of the interests of capitalists [qua capitalists] is a necessary condition for the satisfaction of all other interests within the system.’”
I would like to probe this a bit. I agree that there are forms of liberalism that countenance political rights while blind to inequalities in the distribution of economic resources. On the other hand, Rawlsian and other forms of liberalism are committed to substantial economic redistribution. Moreover liberals, whether in or out of Common Cause, have tried to minimize corporate participation in electoral politics. And liberal political theory surely can support this regulation. Finally, liberals can support substantial regulation of corporations whether in the interests of health, safety, the environment, consumer protection, or, more generally, protection of the national economy.
If radicalism means state ownership of the productive resources of the economy, then it is easy to distinguish radicals from liberals. But owning the productive resources of the state is associated with the old left, not the new left radicals. Perhaps one area of distinction concerns differing assessments of the degree of control exercised by corporations over the government, i.e., the propensity to accept materialistic explanations of political behavior. For example, if one finds Chomsky’s explanations of foreign policy to be persuasive (as I tend to do), I would characterize that aspect of a person’s views as radical, not liberal. Similarly, if one explains domestic political policy with a heavy emphasis on material terms, that would tilt toward the radical. But members of common cause might do the same. If one believes most of this could be solved by drastically minimizing the role of money in politics (eg., by free access to television for political campaigns), perhaps that is a liberal tendency.
Another divide between liberals and radicals in my view has been the degree of emphasis on participatory democracy and opposition to elitism. The new left has stood for participatory democracy; the liberals have embraced “rights” which some radicals have decried if they do not arise from genuinely participatory processes.
Next, in my view, radicals have stood by principle and kept their integrity (sometimes at the expense of progressive efforts); liberals have compromised to get things done (they often compromise too much).
If the radicals are not satisfied with regulation and are not in favor of state ownership of the productive resources, I am not sure what they might uniformly favor. Perhaps greater worker and broader ownership of capital resources (see Bob Hockett’s writing). This sounds reasonable to me, but as Robert Reich argues in Supercapitalism, we are ratifying practices as consumers (sweat shops etc.) and investors (usually through pension funds) that we would never ratify as citizens. Expanding the investment class will not solve our most acute problems.
But the “uniformly favor” standard is too demanding. I think most radicals would favor some form of market socialism (variations on Mill, Hockett, Roemer etc.) and including local government ownership regarding various functions – note we already have government run education and not enough government run health care - liberals favored the public option -). I guess I am with them. But I do not see what difference it makes. Marx had a theory of change. It was wrong. Most radicals do not have a convincing theory in my view of how we might get to market socialism. Moreover, the most important action needed in my view is strong government control over the practices of corporations that have driven us to the brink of environmental and financial ruin. To get there we must first make it possible with campaign reform which will require grassroots organizing and the departure of at least one of the conservatives on the court. It is a long hard road ahead.
I am getting old, and I always wanted to know what I was when I grew up. I guess I’m a radical liberal or a liberal radical.
Comments