In the name of the market: thoughts on "middle way politics"
At first, it seems that this writer find it curious and ridiculous about those who venture in a third way kind of politics. Especially with people who wished for a realistic-driven kind of governance, one would say that their view has becoming a basis for neoliberal capitalists to assert their agenda of a "business-wise" kind of setting to the extent of an almost nightwatchman state kind of sorts using a distorted interpretation of free enterprise.
Ideally they would borrow ideas from left, right, and elsewhere, often melding it altogether to appear as their political view that's supported by realism and pragmatism rather than theories, ideas, and emotions.
However, reality becomes more like being exploited by interests as realism becomes like supporting the interests of the moneyed few while assuming to be for the many. Despite idealising the need to reconcile left-and-right wing politics, it turns out to be an attempt to appear capitalism having a "human face" by what Anthony Giddens saidth about achieving a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism through providing social welfare and other policies.
But despite their appeal to pragmatism and realism, it turns out to be a frustration of being an "objective scientists" especially in trying to break the left-right paradigm. But internally, they turned out to be the least supportive of democracy and favours an apolitical yet authoritative form of governance, making compromises as much as possible to sustain an order even at the expense of the people- and this reminds of Porfirio Diaz with his "less politics and more administration" particularly his administration that's based on action, while letting the economy be at the hands of foreign interests via concessions and agreements.
Is it true? Maybe yes, maybe no, but in their desire to create their perception of order would say that it requires to reduce democracy into a figment of populist imagination and on its place a purely administrative framework that for them be like "professionalism" at its by and large.
Compromises that turned out to be capitulations
Speaking of that compromise, one example would be the idea of limiting people's aspirations to those of just "welfare packages" while leaving the rest to market interests. At one time, this writer read a kid's post about the "Nordic model" that for him an ideal economic and social policy if not a "good example" of a "mixed economy" with a "perfect balance" between social and business interests.
Quite strange that view the kid babbled about that model for an example, but, to think how Scandinavian countries had a combination of high living standards and low income disparity, the Nordic Model, which is a "unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits" has been cited as a role model for economic opportunity.
Interesting at first tho especially on those who desire for economic and social empowerment, but, this social democratic venture isn't really a fantasy of what some capitalist oriented third way-ists do, but according to its creators, part of a view that constitutes a "people's home" with the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another.- and initiators like Per Albin Hansson adopted a planned, rather than a mixed economy where businesses were controlled through regulations, if not having a government that hath more control over the individual, however, to the extent required to increase the wellbeing of its citizens.
However, For those who happenens to intepret it as a "third way", "centrist" venture would say that they reintepret this as a variant of "welfare capitalism" with emphasis on "100% foreign direct investments or FDIs, and higher tax increase for the rich, especially to the super-rich" to finance those welfare packages. Sounds like mellowing further as neoliberals tend to reduce interventionism on the basis of tax issues if not an outrught favouring of a free market economy. Strange but to think that this venture meant capitulating to the free market, and sadly to say, Scandinavian countries did encounter those compromising issues that at times making people complain about it.
On the other hand, compromises can be a measure to retain order. Again by using the atmosphere of inclusivity would say that orderists would do some bread and circuses to evade people from seeking truth from facts. In Hiterite Germany for example, Hitler had to make compromises between the workers and the junkers all for the sake of order within the third reich making his so-called "national socialism" reduced into a populist sentiment in the name of "volksgemeinschaft" (folk community) and its desire for unity if not cohesion. Other leaders did a much straightforward stance, such as a "frijoles y fusiles" kind of approach with an emphasis in silencing people from dissenting- and this did happen in developing countries such as the Philippines whose people usually encounter those approaches that sometimes used to gather votes than promoting a national agenda- and supposed "middle way" adherents end like any other populists in making those ventures whose obvious intent was to upheld the old order's stability than meeting the people's demand, although most of which failed to and hence aggravating a situtation. And it is the same order that accommodates direct foreign investments through deregulation, and at the same time depriving the masses chances of development, all despite the programs and services which politicians dare to brag about.
Of nations replaced by markets, leaders turned vassals
Other than a compromise-filled economic policies, there are those who reduce an idea into a populist venture. Knowing that as they emphasise markets to the extent that they replace the polis with those of the mall, thoughts of depoliticising the society means efficiency such as the mainline view of technocrat as an apolitical initiator and enactor of socioeconomic policies. True to the word "technocrat" would say that they are decision-makers who are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.- and most of them are coming from the sector they accustomed to, especially those from the financial sector.
For sure apologists would either partially agree or disagree about this, that in replacing politics with those of markets, of letting commerce replace politics as center of democracy, today's order would again usher "prosperity" as what Hoppe idealises the Industrial Revolution that enabled mankind to achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity- but that same era would say was the time where Capitalism as much idealised, in its full strength with commerce filling the socioeconomic void that's intentionally left by politics.
Quite strange, for knowing that in an era where people supposed to be desiring for an inclusive kind of development, there are those who rather take that idea as an opportunity to assert their view of de-demoratising, depoliticising, and of commercialising governance. By using the word "technocracy", "pragmatism", and other similar terms they simply wished to fill the void with those from the private sector, whose policies may meant stressing their interests either by diluting those from the commons or by omitting it altogether.
And to think that they wished for an "enlightened elite" to take over government functions and transform into those similar to private institutions, then unsurprising that they're creating a Jack London-like dystopia of sorts, thinking that in the name of capitalist "efficiency" means the continuity of their foothold, as if they're there appointed based on a certain grasp of "technical skill", rather than democratic mandate, and that skill meant providing legal and infrastructural frameworks that is, conducive to business enterprise and the accumulation of capital; much better if having state affairs be limited to the provision of public goods and safeguarding private property rights.
But on the other hand, they have to appease the folk through what been saidth earlier- making package deals whose intent is to suffice a problem rather than promote a really national agenda like Attlee or Albin Hansson did; and from there they would invest for a time being, thinking that they should appear themselves "all for the people" when in fact trying to upheld the order to the extent of making "capitalism with a human face" in it. Quite ridiculous tho knowing that in the guise of unity would say that they make means to mitigate the unjust effects of the order they enjoy with; but to what extent?
Anyway, there are leaders in which they would cite as example of their pretentious, "inclusive view". Ranging from their idealised Lee Kwan Yew to Macron, they would say that they used pragmatic moves all in pursuit of stability if not development- including those perceived as "unpopular" particularly those of economic reforms that obviously, benefited the profiteer at the expense of the commoner.
But remember, not all pragmatics are bootlickers whose drivel was continuity of the rule of market and finance capital. In fact their idols Lee Kwan Yew, Park Chung Hee, hath been utilising economic freedom for so long, but the interventionist stances of these two leaders contradicts what liberals think of- especially those of the former whose economic policies controls foreign investment, and at times intervenes in the economy in general. Lee's economic planning board did prioritise economic directing as part of their cameralism including those of their sovereign wealth funds to support their programs and projects; while Park invested in import substitution industrialisation by utilising its natural resources in order not to depend on remittances and international capital
But again, they don't see that interventionist, dirigist view either because it was passé in favour of a neoliberal economic order that requires sober, vassallike beings like those of Macron and Pinochet. Macron, the posterboy of third way politics has snared people on the basis of a capable leadership that at times claiming himself to continue his once social democratic stances, yet his tax cuts and austerity programs rather fueled discontent amongst middle and working classes, leading to the recent yellow vest protest actions in Paris; what more of their chaotic evil Pinochet who almost transformed his country into a nightwatchman state by letting capitalists run affairs on the basis of free enterprise as suggested by his "Chicago Boys" while keeping firm in his perceived order on the other as supported by De Guzman and his "Gremialism". And to think that there were initial "developments" being bragged about, it turned out to be a bubble bursted! So how come there are those who think positively on them? Just because unpopular decisions sometimes create "good" results? Or will only fuel discontent as these people are actually vassals of international capital?
Anyway, regardless of their idols, their internal thoughts would still yearning for an "elite" to take its place as if trying to create a modern-day Athens, ruling every sphere at the expense of the people's trust. They call it "enlightened" simply because they are "capable of promoting development" but reality shows its contrary knowing that theirs as elite brought by materialism, self interest, and profit than those of the "spirit" and "sacrifice" (thanks Evola). And to think that failure and aggravating discontent brought about by unjust policies its apologists would remain amazed at that their feat- is it because their idol as trying to restore order while let the invisible hand decide? Or perhaps because they see how democracy does not end the depredations of the old order but in fact increases it? Well, these same apologists are as same as court intellectuals of feudal Europe who helped their tyrants gained the absolute power they sought.
What more that since they claim themselves to be patriotic or nationalistic, then perhaps the "nationalism" being talked about by themselves isn't a dynamic, active one that's brought by Hamilton and List. Given that these people apologises for globalisation and neoliberalism, then the "nationalism" they knew is but a sober one, limiting their national view to those of culture and the arts while leaving the rest, including those of politics, at the hands of interests closer to international capital. The oligarch, despite being local, is a compradore by nature who not just seeking rents, but also invests in enterprises that benefiting them, especially those of trade and commerce; it is also a landlord by right, given its centuries-old view of property as divine right, and by monopolising it would say as a part of their investment, even at the expense of the working and the middle class.
But since these apologists asserted more international capital to pour over as if capable of breaking the dominance of the few, sadly, in an order that's dominated by these few rich people would say that these oligarchs are capable of playing games in pursuit of keeping their foothold. The Ayalas used to be in the field of commerce and trade, but they do also engage in manufacturing and in the services sector; so is Gokongwei, Razon, Cojuangco whose background dealt with the soil, Lopez, and others capable of playing with foreign capital. They would claim themselves as patriots or nationalists as they wore barong tagalog or occasional speaking of Filipino in certain events, but like the foreigners who can able to bring 100% Direct Foreign Investments would say they are both flying flags for a convenience. With this, also come to think that their liberalism is the superstructure/underpinning ideology of capitalism; that even an orderist states recognises that kind of idea just like one commentator who limits it to those of an economic one- and that includes the way property rights are conceptualized etc. and not what is otherwise nowadays often implied with term.
Accelerating the situation
Anyway, since these people insist much about globalisation as inevitable, that neoliberalism and the rule of international capital as their end of history, then this writer isn't surprised that they themselves are accelerating a situation contrary to their expectation. On the first place, their perception of a society is more like an attempt to revive full strength capitalism by first using the word "freedom" from being regulated by the hands of the state, then trying to merge state and corporate power with the latter predominates the former in the name of self interest. This kind of absolutism would say that it distorts so as to continue its repression, such as distorting the word internationalism in attempting to atomise or otherwise pervert communities into plain simple demographics the market needs.
With this preferential option for the rich, coming that they preach about an "enlightened" elite or any other fantasies to justify rule of capital, then perhaps better what Zachary Miller, in his bluntly straightforward tone, said:
here are only two choices in government: overt or covert authoriatarianism. Everything else, including republic, is fiction."
But in the end, regardless of what they insist, Adam Muller's statement in "Die Elemente der Staatskunst" continues to resonate for the nation-state as more than ever, that the state as more than just a factory, farm, or an insurance agency, but an entity to unite material and spiritual wealth, of sustaining moral needs, all to create a healthy living whole.
This time, the question is: How will the concerned stop this modern day oligarchic tyranny? Will the concerned take back the words future, freedom, liberty, justice, democracy, progress, and prosperity from the soiled hands of this ever prevailing pseudo aristocracy? Is there any way for the people and their communities to really sustain in this ever progressing world?
Ideally they would borrow ideas from left, right, and elsewhere, often melding it altogether to appear as their political view that's supported by realism and pragmatism rather than theories, ideas, and emotions.
However, reality becomes more like being exploited by interests as realism becomes like supporting the interests of the moneyed few while assuming to be for the many. Despite idealising the need to reconcile left-and-right wing politics, it turns out to be an attempt to appear capitalism having a "human face" by what Anthony Giddens saidth about achieving a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism through providing social welfare and other policies.
But despite their appeal to pragmatism and realism, it turns out to be a frustration of being an "objective scientists" especially in trying to break the left-right paradigm. But internally, they turned out to be the least supportive of democracy and favours an apolitical yet authoritative form of governance, making compromises as much as possible to sustain an order even at the expense of the people- and this reminds of Porfirio Diaz with his "less politics and more administration" particularly his administration that's based on action, while letting the economy be at the hands of foreign interests via concessions and agreements.
Is it true? Maybe yes, maybe no, but in their desire to create their perception of order would say that it requires to reduce democracy into a figment of populist imagination and on its place a purely administrative framework that for them be like "professionalism" at its by and large.
Compromises that turned out to be capitulations
Speaking of that compromise, one example would be the idea of limiting people's aspirations to those of just "welfare packages" while leaving the rest to market interests. At one time, this writer read a kid's post about the "Nordic model" that for him an ideal economic and social policy if not a "good example" of a "mixed economy" with a "perfect balance" between social and business interests.
Quite strange that view the kid babbled about that model for an example, but, to think how Scandinavian countries had a combination of high living standards and low income disparity, the Nordic Model, which is a "unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits" has been cited as a role model for economic opportunity.
Interesting at first tho especially on those who desire for economic and social empowerment, but, this social democratic venture isn't really a fantasy of what some capitalist oriented third way-ists do, but according to its creators, part of a view that constitutes a "people's home" with the entire society ought to be like a small family, where everybody contributes, but also where everybody looks after one another.- and initiators like Per Albin Hansson adopted a planned, rather than a mixed economy where businesses were controlled through regulations, if not having a government that hath more control over the individual, however, to the extent required to increase the wellbeing of its citizens.
However, For those who happenens to intepret it as a "third way", "centrist" venture would say that they reintepret this as a variant of "welfare capitalism" with emphasis on "100% foreign direct investments or FDIs, and higher tax increase for the rich, especially to the super-rich" to finance those welfare packages. Sounds like mellowing further as neoliberals tend to reduce interventionism on the basis of tax issues if not an outrught favouring of a free market economy. Strange but to think that this venture meant capitulating to the free market, and sadly to say, Scandinavian countries did encounter those compromising issues that at times making people complain about it.
On the other hand, compromises can be a measure to retain order. Again by using the atmosphere of inclusivity would say that orderists would do some bread and circuses to evade people from seeking truth from facts. In Hiterite Germany for example, Hitler had to make compromises between the workers and the junkers all for the sake of order within the third reich making his so-called "national socialism" reduced into a populist sentiment in the name of "volksgemeinschaft" (folk community) and its desire for unity if not cohesion. Other leaders did a much straightforward stance, such as a "frijoles y fusiles" kind of approach with an emphasis in silencing people from dissenting- and this did happen in developing countries such as the Philippines whose people usually encounter those approaches that sometimes used to gather votes than promoting a national agenda- and supposed "middle way" adherents end like any other populists in making those ventures whose obvious intent was to upheld the old order's stability than meeting the people's demand, although most of which failed to and hence aggravating a situtation. And it is the same order that accommodates direct foreign investments through deregulation, and at the same time depriving the masses chances of development, all despite the programs and services which politicians dare to brag about.
Of nations replaced by markets, leaders turned vassals
Other than a compromise-filled economic policies, there are those who reduce an idea into a populist venture. Knowing that as they emphasise markets to the extent that they replace the polis with those of the mall, thoughts of depoliticising the society means efficiency such as the mainline view of technocrat as an apolitical initiator and enactor of socioeconomic policies. True to the word "technocrat" would say that they are decision-makers who are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.- and most of them are coming from the sector they accustomed to, especially those from the financial sector.
For sure apologists would either partially agree or disagree about this, that in replacing politics with those of markets, of letting commerce replace politics as center of democracy, today's order would again usher "prosperity" as what Hoppe idealises the Industrial Revolution that enabled mankind to achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity- but that same era would say was the time where Capitalism as much idealised, in its full strength with commerce filling the socioeconomic void that's intentionally left by politics.
Quite strange, for knowing that in an era where people supposed to be desiring for an inclusive kind of development, there are those who rather take that idea as an opportunity to assert their view of de-demoratising, depoliticising, and of commercialising governance. By using the word "technocracy", "pragmatism", and other similar terms they simply wished to fill the void with those from the private sector, whose policies may meant stressing their interests either by diluting those from the commons or by omitting it altogether.
And to think that they wished for an "enlightened elite" to take over government functions and transform into those similar to private institutions, then unsurprising that they're creating a Jack London-like dystopia of sorts, thinking that in the name of capitalist "efficiency" means the continuity of their foothold, as if they're there appointed based on a certain grasp of "technical skill", rather than democratic mandate, and that skill meant providing legal and infrastructural frameworks that is, conducive to business enterprise and the accumulation of capital; much better if having state affairs be limited to the provision of public goods and safeguarding private property rights.
But on the other hand, they have to appease the folk through what been saidth earlier- making package deals whose intent is to suffice a problem rather than promote a really national agenda like Attlee or Albin Hansson did; and from there they would invest for a time being, thinking that they should appear themselves "all for the people" when in fact trying to upheld the order to the extent of making "capitalism with a human face" in it. Quite ridiculous tho knowing that in the guise of unity would say that they make means to mitigate the unjust effects of the order they enjoy with; but to what extent?
Anyway, there are leaders in which they would cite as example of their pretentious, "inclusive view". Ranging from their idealised Lee Kwan Yew to Macron, they would say that they used pragmatic moves all in pursuit of stability if not development- including those perceived as "unpopular" particularly those of economic reforms that obviously, benefited the profiteer at the expense of the commoner.
But remember, not all pragmatics are bootlickers whose drivel was continuity of the rule of market and finance capital. In fact their idols Lee Kwan Yew, Park Chung Hee, hath been utilising economic freedom for so long, but the interventionist stances of these two leaders contradicts what liberals think of- especially those of the former whose economic policies controls foreign investment, and at times intervenes in the economy in general. Lee's economic planning board did prioritise economic directing as part of their cameralism including those of their sovereign wealth funds to support their programs and projects; while Park invested in import substitution industrialisation by utilising its natural resources in order not to depend on remittances and international capital
But again, they don't see that interventionist, dirigist view either because it was passé in favour of a neoliberal economic order that requires sober, vassallike beings like those of Macron and Pinochet. Macron, the posterboy of third way politics has snared people on the basis of a capable leadership that at times claiming himself to continue his once social democratic stances, yet his tax cuts and austerity programs rather fueled discontent amongst middle and working classes, leading to the recent yellow vest protest actions in Paris; what more of their chaotic evil Pinochet who almost transformed his country into a nightwatchman state by letting capitalists run affairs on the basis of free enterprise as suggested by his "Chicago Boys" while keeping firm in his perceived order on the other as supported by De Guzman and his "Gremialism". And to think that there were initial "developments" being bragged about, it turned out to be a bubble bursted! So how come there are those who think positively on them? Just because unpopular decisions sometimes create "good" results? Or will only fuel discontent as these people are actually vassals of international capital?
Anyway, regardless of their idols, their internal thoughts would still yearning for an "elite" to take its place as if trying to create a modern-day Athens, ruling every sphere at the expense of the people's trust. They call it "enlightened" simply because they are "capable of promoting development" but reality shows its contrary knowing that theirs as elite brought by materialism, self interest, and profit than those of the "spirit" and "sacrifice" (thanks Evola). And to think that failure and aggravating discontent brought about by unjust policies its apologists would remain amazed at that their feat- is it because their idol as trying to restore order while let the invisible hand decide? Or perhaps because they see how democracy does not end the depredations of the old order but in fact increases it? Well, these same apologists are as same as court intellectuals of feudal Europe who helped their tyrants gained the absolute power they sought.
What more that since they claim themselves to be patriotic or nationalistic, then perhaps the "nationalism" being talked about by themselves isn't a dynamic, active one that's brought by Hamilton and List. Given that these people apologises for globalisation and neoliberalism, then the "nationalism" they knew is but a sober one, limiting their national view to those of culture and the arts while leaving the rest, including those of politics, at the hands of interests closer to international capital. The oligarch, despite being local, is a compradore by nature who not just seeking rents, but also invests in enterprises that benefiting them, especially those of trade and commerce; it is also a landlord by right, given its centuries-old view of property as divine right, and by monopolising it would say as a part of their investment, even at the expense of the working and the middle class.
But since these apologists asserted more international capital to pour over as if capable of breaking the dominance of the few, sadly, in an order that's dominated by these few rich people would say that these oligarchs are capable of playing games in pursuit of keeping their foothold. The Ayalas used to be in the field of commerce and trade, but they do also engage in manufacturing and in the services sector; so is Gokongwei, Razon, Cojuangco whose background dealt with the soil, Lopez, and others capable of playing with foreign capital. They would claim themselves as patriots or nationalists as they wore barong tagalog or occasional speaking of Filipino in certain events, but like the foreigners who can able to bring 100% Direct Foreign Investments would say they are both flying flags for a convenience. With this, also come to think that their liberalism is the superstructure/underpinning ideology of capitalism; that even an orderist states recognises that kind of idea just like one commentator who limits it to those of an economic one- and that includes the way property rights are conceptualized etc. and not what is otherwise nowadays often implied with term.
Accelerating the situation
Anyway, since these people insist much about globalisation as inevitable, that neoliberalism and the rule of international capital as their end of history, then this writer isn't surprised that they themselves are accelerating a situation contrary to their expectation. On the first place, their perception of a society is more like an attempt to revive full strength capitalism by first using the word "freedom" from being regulated by the hands of the state, then trying to merge state and corporate power with the latter predominates the former in the name of self interest. This kind of absolutism would say that it distorts so as to continue its repression, such as distorting the word internationalism in attempting to atomise or otherwise pervert communities into plain simple demographics the market needs.
With this preferential option for the rich, coming that they preach about an "enlightened" elite or any other fantasies to justify rule of capital, then perhaps better what Zachary Miller, in his bluntly straightforward tone, said:
here are only two choices in government: overt or covert authoriatarianism. Everything else, including republic, is fiction."
But in the end, regardless of what they insist, Adam Muller's statement in "Die Elemente der Staatskunst" continues to resonate for the nation-state as more than ever, that the state as more than just a factory, farm, or an insurance agency, but an entity to unite material and spiritual wealth, of sustaining moral needs, all to create a healthy living whole.
This time, the question is: How will the concerned stop this modern day oligarchic tyranny? Will the concerned take back the words future, freedom, liberty, justice, democracy, progress, and prosperity from the soiled hands of this ever prevailing pseudo aristocracy? Is there any way for the people and their communities to really sustain in this ever progressing world?