Why the conservative work ethic is intrinsic to any state

In Anderson’s Hijacked, she provides a careful account of the economic, political and moral downfall that have led to large oppressive mechanisms in society today. She identifies the root of these losses to be “neoliberalism” though she expresses unimportance about the exact term used, “Call it what you will - neoliberalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, free-market capitalism - the ideological rationale for these changes is at root a revival of the conservative work ethic,” (256). I find two critical areas of analysis from this quote: 1. The subject of ideology, and 2. The “revival” of the conservative work ethic. I will focus on the later first:


Though Anderson claims to find some overlap of ideas with Marx towards the end of Chapter 10, her ideas lack the marxist understanding of the state. She claims that great success was had during the three decades following the second world war yet this success is incredibly context dependent. If success is seen by the implementation of welfare programs through agendas like The New Deal, there are context dependent reasons that explain why the very first implementation of welfare programs was such a success. Further, there are context dependent reasons to explain why many decades later, welfare programs have greater complexities and nuance to encompass as population has grown and consequently systemic oppression has too with the development of these institutions. It seems to me Anderson is simplifying the post-world wars work ethic post to be “progressive” simply because it existed at a time where any improvements would be progressive and expansion of consumerism and capital was in its very infancy. Anderson claims a shift from “stakeholder to shareholder capitalism” has caused this focus on efficiency and profit maximization. However, stakeholder and shareholder capitalism ultimately both depend on long term profitability to function and that requires both types of capitalism to prioritize financial viability and consequently, profitability. 


My point is, the progressive work ethic is not something that ever truly existed if it does what Anderson thinks it can do. Any state meant to protect private property and operate off capital is intrinsically operating off profit, competition and a stigma of hard work. The division of labor forces businesses to compete, whether we are "regulating" the market or not we are not attacking the root of the problem: Any state that operates with capital requires persons who are not free. To truly give the working class support as Anderson claims is to collapse the labor markets. She writes that Marx is wrong about markets, “Social democracy recognizes that markets, private property and private enterprises can be forces for great good” (295). I feel this inherently contradicts itself as private enterprises based on capital will always result in exploitation as that is the embodiment of alienated capitalistic work. That is why any state with capital relies on the conservative work ethic of not empowering the working class to ensure the grueling work that is done keeps the market running. 


To touch on the second point, Anderson’s critiques of neoliberalism directly align with Marx’s critiques of any political state. What she doesn’t realize, I believe, is that the values of neoliberalism are not new and there is nothing that can be revived. In fact it is the values of ever present capitalism/neoliberalism that work as ideological mechanisms to sustain the structural oppression of the state. The intrinsic structure of the state requires “neoliberalism” to sustain itself. Ridding oneself of that ideology is what Marx believes can only happen with the destruction of the state and access to reason, only then could we interact justly with one another. Work ethic is important but the state’s reliance on it proves the state's existence is more important. You can’t advocate for real workers' support without abolishing markets. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We're all separate but equal

During my tutorial with Dylan yesterday, he brought up the SCOTUS case Brown vs. Board of Education in our discussion of a minimal state. Whilst reading Marx, I realized that both the legal implication (state according rights to individuals) and the societal implication (abolishment of the 'separate but equal' doctrine) of the case are relevant to the claims Marx is making.  Marx delineates between two societies -- political and civil -- and further between the two lives one leads in each -- public and private. In a political society, man is entitled to the liberties given to him by the state, and considers himself a member of a functional community. Marx hints at the mirage of political society, writing that man is “the imaginary member of an imaginary sovereignty, divested of his real, individual life, and infused with an unreal universality” (34). In such a society, he leads a public life, one in which the state can establish political equality by abolishing “the distinctio...
Read more

What Brettschneider Ought to Admit: Democracy Is Substantive

Although Corey Brettschneider presents his value theory of democracy as a third way between pure proceduralism and outcome-based accounts, his framework collapses into substantivism. Despite insisting that democracy cannot be reduced to “procedure-independent evaluations of outcomes,”(2) he explicitly grounds democratic legitimacy in substantive rights that “limit those policy outcomes that would fail to respect citizens as rulers.” (20). Legitimacy therefore hinges not merely on fair participation but on conformity to three independently specified values—equality of interests, political autonomy, and reciprocity. These values operate as external normative standards against which democratic decisions are judged. Brettschneider treats policies such as ex post facto laws or vote buying as democratically illegitimate regardless of procedural authorization, making clear that outcomes remain subject to direct moral assessment. This is not procedural democracy supplemented by rights; it is ...
Read more

'Enough and as Good' for Whom?

 Both Hobbes and Locke describe a state of nature grounded in equality and natural law. Yet, they reach sharply different conclusions about property. Hobbes denies any possibility of owning property in the state of nature. Locke, by contrast, argues that individuals may aquire private property prior to any government by mixing their labor with common resources. By allowing pre-political appropriation, Locke commits himself to moral constraints on ownership.  Locke introduces these limits through two provisos. The Spoiling proviso requires that an individual only claim ownership over land/natural resources to what one can use before it spoils, critizicing waste as a violation of natural law: "Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy" (21). To me, this limit is relatively clear and intuitive.  More demanding, however, is Locke's second proviso, claiming that appropriation is only legitimate if "enough, and as good" is left in common for others. At first...
Read more