(originally published March 30, 2012)
As today was my last SJPS class of my undergraduate career, (because next Friday is Good Friday) I felt compelled to write a Facebook note to consolidate and commemorate my 4-year exploration of social (in)justice and peace.
I'll always remember my first SJPS class. I had professor [anonymous]. Like most introductory liberal arts courses, it was lecture-based with short tutorials. In the lecture, [anonymous] broke down the roots of classical liberalism and therefore the ideological roots of modern Neoliberalism. [anonymous] divided classical liberalism into four parts: self-interest, individuality, merit, and equality.
It's ironic, by the end of the SJPS program, it's kind of accepted that you despise, or at least are highly critical of neoliberalism, (as evinced by the exam question I just answered two weeks ago regarding the architecture of the neoliberalist agenda). Yet none of my professors ever took their contempt, or at least their criticisms of this ideology, to its logical conclusions.
What does a rejection of neoliberalism really mean? and what does this rejection require?
Lets start by deconstructing its four pillars.
---Self-interest---
Since neoliberalism is often interpreted as one of the roots of social injustice, then its ideological opposite must be just. As such, if one rejects self-interest, they must value selflessness.
---Individuality---
Continuing this line of reasoning, a rejection of neoliberalism must include a rejection of individuality. What does a denial of individuality look like? An acceptance of the community. A rejection of neoliberalism requires a glorification or at least a valuing of the community over the individual.
---Merit---
This one's more complicated. The literal opposite of merit would be the devaluing of the process of rewarding good behavior, i.e. the glorification of bad behaviour. Therefore, I think it would be truer to reality to describe the opposite of merit as simply the absence of merit. One way of enacting the opposite of merit would be to value excellence for excellence's sake, not a reward. (I couldn't find an antonym for merit --- to my knowledge, there's no word for the absence of reward systems)
---Equality---
Let me be frank, most SJPSers do not reject equality. The literal opposite of equality would, of course, be inequality, but I promise you, no one I've encountered in my program is arguing for inequality, even when they claim to reject Neoliberalism. If anything, this is the only pillar that most SJPSers do not contest. [edit as of Nov. 26 2013: SJPSers value equity over equality. Equality is where everyone is treated the same. Equity is where everyone gets what they need.]
So based on a deconstruction of its contentious pillars, here's what a rejection of neoliberalism looks like:
a rejection of neoliberalism requires the glorification of selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of meritocracy (meritocracy being the "rule of merit").
See where I'm going with this yet?
What sociopoliticoeconomic model is based on selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of reward systems?
Communism.
Not Soviet communism, not Maoist Communism, not North Korean communism, not even Latin American communism.
Old-school, Marxian and Engelian 'Communist Manifesto' communism.
In my four years of undergraduate Social Justice and Peace Studies, no one dared drop the "C" word. Instead, it was always more politically correct to call it "Socialism."
There's a good reason for this linguistic subterfuge. The word communism was completely bastardized in the 20th century by regimes claiming to be communist even though they probably never actually read Marx (Granted, I could barely claim to have "read Marx" myself as Marx wrote countless volumes of material that incorporated his perspective on just about everything relevant to his age).
Believe me, Marx never EVER even suggested that a communist revolution should end in a dictator: even a temporary dictatorship. He always argued that communism would come about by a collapse of capitalism. Marx framed his desired sociopoliticoeconomic system as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (of the common/working class person) specifically to accentuate the absence of any centralized authority, especially the centralization of authority in an individual. As my close friends have heard me say time and again, a communist-dictatorship is a an oxymoron: it is a complete contradiction of terms from a Marxian perspective.
---
To be honest, I'm slightly outraged when reflecting on my four years of Social Justice an Peace studies, because no one ever had the balls (or ovaries) to be honest about what we were actually talking about/advocating for, all along. I know there's politics involved, i.e. the politics of this college being Catholic with a mandate to respect "Catholic Values." I've been exposed to these politics for years: I've worked for the coordinator of the program for 6 terms and he happens to be passionately pro-Palestinian - which doesn't fly so well at the college.
But honestly, we're talking about the future of the planet. Today we watched a video that explored the current success of "socialist" regimes in Latin America. It's like it's so obvious, yet no one is prepared to have the conversation. Seriously though, what negative consequences could there be for a system based on selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization?
Let me put it this way. One fear many people share with regards to communism is its implied threat to religion. Marx may have had his misgivings with the church... but so do actual Catholics today. I know most Christian moderate Republican business leaders may wince when I say this, but Jesus was a communist. He believed in selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization.
Religion and democracy do not contradict communism. Hello Latin America. People seem to forget that communism was framed as the literal rule of the people (especially the common people) for the people.
---
But, I also know we're not ready to make the move to communism either, at least not yet.
Communism requires a significant shift in general societal values in order to be successful. And more importantly, I've learned in the last four years that any successful communist revolution would require significant human capital. I truly believe, as I'm writing in my final essay for SJPS, that this revolution will not occur in the way Marx argued: that is, a revolution from the bottom. Rather, I believe the precursor to a communist utopia is a revolution from the top. Specifically, an intellectual revolution.
Why an "intellectual revolution"?
We will require significant human capital including such skills like empathy in order for individuals to value the lives of others over their own. They also need to value, and therefore understand, community - and not just community within their nuclear family - I'm talking cosmopolitanism. Finally, they'll need to be able to self-actualize and thus find their happiness in this new reality, which may be the hardest change of all. Many of us have made and continue to make great strides towards this new world, but it can't be rushed or it will fail. In the end, people have to choose it, on their own terms.
I realize I've detracted from my original focus for this note and I don't know where to end it. Hope you enjoyed my rant. I couldn't find a picture that captured the meaning of this rant... and apparently Facebook's note application doesn't like my dancing Kirby emoticons - or any emoticon for that matter. So imagine your own relative picture.
As today was my last SJPS class of my undergraduate career, (because next Friday is Good Friday) I felt compelled to write a Facebook note to consolidate and commemorate my 4-year exploration of social (in)justice and peace.
I'll always remember my first SJPS class. I had professor [anonymous]. Like most introductory liberal arts courses, it was lecture-based with short tutorials. In the lecture, [anonymous] broke down the roots of classical liberalism and therefore the ideological roots of modern Neoliberalism. [anonymous] divided classical liberalism into four parts: self-interest, individuality, merit, and equality.
It's ironic, by the end of the SJPS program, it's kind of accepted that you despise, or at least are highly critical of neoliberalism, (as evinced by the exam question I just answered two weeks ago regarding the architecture of the neoliberalist agenda). Yet none of my professors ever took their contempt, or at least their criticisms of this ideology, to its logical conclusions.
What does a rejection of neoliberalism really mean? and what does this rejection require?
Lets start by deconstructing its four pillars.
---Self-interest---
Since neoliberalism is often interpreted as one of the roots of social injustice, then its ideological opposite must be just. As such, if one rejects self-interest, they must value selflessness.
---Individuality---
Continuing this line of reasoning, a rejection of neoliberalism must include a rejection of individuality. What does a denial of individuality look like? An acceptance of the community. A rejection of neoliberalism requires a glorification or at least a valuing of the community over the individual.
---Merit---
This one's more complicated. The literal opposite of merit would be the devaluing of the process of rewarding good behavior, i.e. the glorification of bad behaviour. Therefore, I think it would be truer to reality to describe the opposite of merit as simply the absence of merit. One way of enacting the opposite of merit would be to value excellence for excellence's sake, not a reward. (I couldn't find an antonym for merit --- to my knowledge, there's no word for the absence of reward systems)
---Equality---
Let me be frank, most SJPSers do not reject equality. The literal opposite of equality would, of course, be inequality, but I promise you, no one I've encountered in my program is arguing for inequality, even when they claim to reject Neoliberalism. If anything, this is the only pillar that most SJPSers do not contest. [edit as of Nov. 26 2013: SJPSers value equity over equality. Equality is where everyone is treated the same. Equity is where everyone gets what they need.]
So based on a deconstruction of its contentious pillars, here's what a rejection of neoliberalism looks like:
a rejection of neoliberalism requires the glorification of selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of meritocracy (meritocracy being the "rule of merit").
See where I'm going with this yet?
What sociopoliticoeconomic model is based on selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of reward systems?
Communism.
Not Soviet communism, not Maoist Communism, not North Korean communism, not even Latin American communism.
Old-school, Marxian and Engelian 'Communist Manifesto' communism.
In my four years of undergraduate Social Justice and Peace Studies, no one dared drop the "C" word. Instead, it was always more politically correct to call it "Socialism."
There's a good reason for this linguistic subterfuge. The word communism was completely bastardized in the 20th century by regimes claiming to be communist even though they probably never actually read Marx (Granted, I could barely claim to have "read Marx" myself as Marx wrote countless volumes of material that incorporated his perspective on just about everything relevant to his age).
Believe me, Marx never EVER even suggested that a communist revolution should end in a dictator: even a temporary dictatorship. He always argued that communism would come about by a collapse of capitalism. Marx framed his desired sociopoliticoeconomic system as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (of the common/working class person) specifically to accentuate the absence of any centralized authority, especially the centralization of authority in an individual. As my close friends have heard me say time and again, a communist-dictatorship is a an oxymoron: it is a complete contradiction of terms from a Marxian perspective.
---
To be honest, I'm slightly outraged when reflecting on my four years of Social Justice an Peace studies, because no one ever had the balls (or ovaries) to be honest about what we were actually talking about/advocating for, all along. I know there's politics involved, i.e. the politics of this college being Catholic with a mandate to respect "Catholic Values." I've been exposed to these politics for years: I've worked for the coordinator of the program for 6 terms and he happens to be passionately pro-Palestinian - which doesn't fly so well at the college.
But honestly, we're talking about the future of the planet. Today we watched a video that explored the current success of "socialist" regimes in Latin America. It's like it's so obvious, yet no one is prepared to have the conversation. Seriously though, what negative consequences could there be for a system based on selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization?
Let me put it this way. One fear many people share with regards to communism is its implied threat to religion. Marx may have had his misgivings with the church... but so do actual Catholics today. I know most Christian moderate Republican business leaders may wince when I say this, but Jesus was a communist. He believed in selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization.
Religion and democracy do not contradict communism. Hello Latin America. People seem to forget that communism was framed as the literal rule of the people (especially the common people) for the people.
---
But, I also know we're not ready to make the move to communism either, at least not yet.
Communism requires a significant shift in general societal values in order to be successful. And more importantly, I've learned in the last four years that any successful communist revolution would require significant human capital. I truly believe, as I'm writing in my final essay for SJPS, that this revolution will not occur in the way Marx argued: that is, a revolution from the bottom. Rather, I believe the precursor to a communist utopia is a revolution from the top. Specifically, an intellectual revolution.
Why an "intellectual revolution"?
We will require significant human capital including such skills like empathy in order for individuals to value the lives of others over their own. They also need to value, and therefore understand, community - and not just community within their nuclear family - I'm talking cosmopolitanism. Finally, they'll need to be able to self-actualize and thus find their happiness in this new reality, which may be the hardest change of all. Many of us have made and continue to make great strides towards this new world, but it can't be rushed or it will fail. In the end, people have to choose it, on their own terms.
I realize I've detracted from my original focus for this note and I don't know where to end it. Hope you enjoyed my rant. I couldn't find a picture that captured the meaning of this rant... and apparently Facebook's note application doesn't like my dancing Kirby emoticons - or any emoticon for that matter. So imagine your own relative picture.
