Author Othniel Smith wrote "An aspiration which you fight for becomes a right, which you stoutly defend...and a privilege, which you are happy to deny to others".
This powerfully captures the core contradiction of human economic growth - that great wealth is created through social co-operation (there are no billionaires made on a dessert island). but can be aquired through selfish extraxtion. Thats why a stable government (one where the state holds a, monopoly over violence) is a pre-requisite for economic development, as it limits the opportunity for economic extraction by "thugs" who use power or violence to simply steal the wealth created by others.
Because we are so dependant on the modern state for our personal security, our nationality becomes a key dividing line. We accept the need for wealth re-distribution within our national borders to benefit "us" but reject immigration or foreign aid, designed to help "them".
This is why trans-national structures that seek to promote international co-operation over mercantilist competition, are so important. The EU is the most powerful example of this strategy, as it creates a framework that replacesd competition between nations (two World wars fought in Europe! ) with economic co-operation.
Ironically, it is now the EU border that defines exclusivity, restricting membership and freedom of movement across its own borders (A powerful scare tactic in the Brexit fiasco was to warn voters that Turkey would soon be granted EU membership!).
Whats needed today is a more powerful "Global Economic Union" which finally recognises that we are all better off when we are ALL better off. We need to learn that in The Global Race there really is only one "Us". Whether such Global co-operation can emerge from the UN, or through greater regional trade structures like the EU that converge to work together is not clear. What is self evident us that tackling Global inequality only becomes possible if we learn to build political structures that will encourage peace and Global co-operation, over competition.between nations.
Sounds very interesting and I'm looking forward to picking this one up. Regarding your point about identity politics, Olufemi O. Taiwo wrote an incisive and nuanced piece on the failings of one aspect of identity politics as co-opted and practiced by elites. He focuses on standpoint epistemology and deference to identity, and argues that because of the huge barriers to get into decision-making rooms, when people in power defer to someone of a specific racial identity because of their lived experience, they are flattening that identity and implicitly assuming that this elite (in the decision-making room) person of that race has the same experience and perspective as the average person of their race.
The whole essay is well-worth reading, but I think this section is key:
"It is easy, then, to see how this deferential form of standpoint epistemology contributes to elite capture at scale. The rooms of power and influence are at the end of causal chains that have selection effects. As you get higher and higher forms of education, social experiences narrow – some students are pipelined to PhDs and others to prisons. Deferential ways of dealing with identity can inherit the distortions caused by these selection processes.
But it’s equally easy to see locally – in this room, in this academic literature or field, in this conversation – why this deference seems to make sense. It is often an improvement on the epistemic procedure that preceded it: the person deferred to may well be better epistemically positioned than the others in the room. It may well be the best we can do while holding fixed most of the facts about the rooms themselves: what power resides in them, who is admitted."
Regarding the differences in global equality vs. national, at least from a US perspective I think that calling for global equality has become very difficult because of the rabid anticommunism. Anyone who suggests solidarity with the poor people of other countries is targeted, and more so if they suggest real policy change.
With identity politics Carl Schmitt’s dictum (every ideology of equality… is predicated on the exclusion of others from that equality) is at full display.
Identities are used to pit groups of people against one another. That is why identity politics are weaponized by the elites to distract people and to avoid growing class conscience at all cost. Class is off limits for the elites across the bourgeois spectrum because class subsumes all identities. A spectre - class - has been haunting societies since ….
On the other hand, even if one would support a closing of the gap between rich and poor countries, perhaps Myrdal's recipe is not the best.
His own selfdeclared disciple Erik Reinert (How rich countries god rich, and why poor countries stay poor, 2007) believes capital transfer would only be a poor relief, or a pension, with no long-term effects. What is needed is getting poor countries grow industry, and qualified industry at that. To do this they must first have the permission to guide and twist their own economic development (=away with, or change radically, the WTO rules). Then they must be strong enough to fend off rich countries' attempts of sabotage. So they will have to group together, forming their own EUs against the ones of the rich countries.
This is, according to Reinert, (and Chang, and Amsden, and other scholars of growth) what the now rich countries did before they were rich. And while I would be reluctant to just transfer capital (who knows who's nest it would feather) I would strongly support some more Chinas in the world.
Very interesting and thorough review. For me I suppose one would have to expand the notion of equality under a framework of universal human rights. This would be the aspirational goal: everyone is equal by virtue of being human regardless of specific identity or background. In practice, the author is right, ironically movements for "equality" have sometimes carved out space for themselves based on specific identities and this has sometimes exacerbated inequality in result. But I do not think this is an insurmountable problem. We can work towards true international equality using innovative tools-- recognizing our common humanity along the way.
That's Sparta from the 5th (maybe even 8th) century BC onwards, not the Bronze age Sparta with Helen, Menelaus and the Trojan war.
Is there a source which contradicts that view? You're quoting Carl Schmitt on that, so I'm not really sure whether it's supposed to be from this book or from somewhere else.
"It then becomes fully understandable why countries with the most developed welfare states (Sweden, Denmark Norway, the Netherlands) are the most notable examples of the ideological U-turn on international migration."
The only way to durably minimize unwanted immigration is to allow poor countries to industrialize. Perhaps also support them doing that.
Which, to my knowledge, implies radically change the WTO rules. According to them, only "the market" has the right to cause industrialization. Or, said in another way, transnational corporations.
And that is too shaky. All poor countries should have the right to twist the market in the way China has done, or more. And if they are too weak to do that, they should be allowed to band together.
Rich countries must realize that if they want cheap raw materials from poor countries they will get their people too, if they want or not.
Good point. After reading the book, I thought so. (I have to say that before reading it, I have not thought of such a strong connection between equality and exclusion).
Author Othniel Smith wrote "An aspiration which you fight for becomes a right, which you stoutly defend...and a privilege, which you are happy to deny to others".
This powerfully captures the core contradiction of human economic growth - that great wealth is created through social co-operation (there are no billionaires made on a dessert island). but can be aquired through selfish extraxtion. Thats why a stable government (one where the state holds a, monopoly over violence) is a pre-requisite for economic development, as it limits the opportunity for economic extraction by "thugs" who use power or violence to simply steal the wealth created by others.
Because we are so dependant on the modern state for our personal security, our nationality becomes a key dividing line. We accept the need for wealth re-distribution within our national borders to benefit "us" but reject immigration or foreign aid, designed to help "them".
This is why trans-national structures that seek to promote international co-operation over mercantilist competition, are so important. The EU is the most powerful example of this strategy, as it creates a framework that replacesd competition between nations (two World wars fought in Europe! ) with economic co-operation.
Ironically, it is now the EU border that defines exclusivity, restricting membership and freedom of movement across its own borders (A powerful scare tactic in the Brexit fiasco was to warn voters that Turkey would soon be granted EU membership!).
Whats needed today is a more powerful "Global Economic Union" which finally recognises that we are all better off when we are ALL better off. We need to learn that in The Global Race there really is only one "Us". Whether such Global co-operation can emerge from the UN, or through greater regional trade structures like the EU that converge to work together is not clear. What is self evident us that tackling Global inequality only becomes possible if we learn to build political structures that will encourage peace and Global co-operation, over competition.between nations.
Sounds very interesting and I'm looking forward to picking this one up. Regarding your point about identity politics, Olufemi O. Taiwo wrote an incisive and nuanced piece on the failings of one aspect of identity politics as co-opted and practiced by elites. He focuses on standpoint epistemology and deference to identity, and argues that because of the huge barriers to get into decision-making rooms, when people in power defer to someone of a specific racial identity because of their lived experience, they are flattening that identity and implicitly assuming that this elite (in the decision-making room) person of that race has the same experience and perspective as the average person of their race.
The whole essay is well-worth reading, but I think this section is key:
"It is easy, then, to see how this deferential form of standpoint epistemology contributes to elite capture at scale. The rooms of power and influence are at the end of causal chains that have selection effects. As you get higher and higher forms of education, social experiences narrow – some students are pipelined to PhDs and others to prisons. Deferential ways of dealing with identity can inherit the distortions caused by these selection processes.
But it’s equally easy to see locally – in this room, in this academic literature or field, in this conversation – why this deference seems to make sense. It is often an improvement on the epistemic procedure that preceded it: the person deferred to may well be better epistemically positioned than the others in the room. It may well be the best we can do while holding fixed most of the facts about the rooms themselves: what power resides in them, who is admitted."
https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/being-in-the-room-privilege-elite-capture-and-epistemic-deference
Regarding the differences in global equality vs. national, at least from a US perspective I think that calling for global equality has become very difficult because of the rabid anticommunism. Anyone who suggests solidarity with the poor people of other countries is targeted, and more so if they suggest real policy change.
You've given me lots of food for thought.
With identity politics Carl Schmitt’s dictum (every ideology of equality… is predicated on the exclusion of others from that equality) is at full display.
Identities are used to pit groups of people against one another. That is why identity politics are weaponized by the elites to distract people and to avoid growing class conscience at all cost. Class is off limits for the elites across the bourgeois spectrum because class subsumes all identities. A spectre - class - has been haunting societies since ….
On the other hand, even if one would support a closing of the gap between rich and poor countries, perhaps Myrdal's recipe is not the best.
His own selfdeclared disciple Erik Reinert (How rich countries god rich, and why poor countries stay poor, 2007) believes capital transfer would only be a poor relief, or a pension, with no long-term effects. What is needed is getting poor countries grow industry, and qualified industry at that. To do this they must first have the permission to guide and twist their own economic development (=away with, or change radically, the WTO rules). Then they must be strong enough to fend off rich countries' attempts of sabotage. So they will have to group together, forming their own EUs against the ones of the rich countries.
This is, according to Reinert, (and Chang, and Amsden, and other scholars of growth) what the now rich countries did before they were rich. And while I would be reluctant to just transfer capital (who knows who's nest it would feather) I would strongly support some more Chinas in the world.
Very interesting and thorough review. For me I suppose one would have to expand the notion of equality under a framework of universal human rights. This would be the aspirational goal: everyone is equal by virtue of being human regardless of specific identity or background. In practice, the author is right, ironically movements for "equality" have sometimes carved out space for themselves based on specific identities and this has sometimes exacerbated inequality in result. But I do not think this is an insurmountable problem. We can work towards true international equality using innovative tools-- recognizing our common humanity along the way.
Every source about Spartan women I've encountered so far said they had equal rights as men. Or almost equal.
Even Wikipedia has an article about that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Sparta
That's Sparta from the 5th (maybe even 8th) century BC onwards, not the Bronze age Sparta with Helen, Menelaus and the Trojan war.
Is there a source which contradicts that view? You're quoting Carl Schmitt on that, so I'm not really sure whether it's supposed to be from this book or from somewhere else.
"It then becomes fully understandable why countries with the most developed welfare states (Sweden, Denmark Norway, the Netherlands) are the most notable examples of the ideological U-turn on international migration."
True and scary (said as a Dutchman myself).
The only way to durably minimize unwanted immigration is to allow poor countries to industrialize. Perhaps also support them doing that.
Which, to my knowledge, implies radically change the WTO rules. According to them, only "the market" has the right to cause industrialization. Or, said in another way, transnational corporations.
And that is too shaky. All poor countries should have the right to twist the market in the way China has done, or more. And if they are too weak to do that, they should be allowed to band together.
Rich countries must realize that if they want cheap raw materials from poor countries they will get their people too, if they want or not.
Great summary and critique. So, could this be known as the (eternal) Egalitarian Paradox?
Good point. After reading the book, I thought so. (I have to say that before reading it, I have not thought of such a strong connection between equality and exclusion).