As promised in the last
posting, this offering addresses the influence critical theory has on
federation theory or, probably more accurately stated, it points out the
similar arguments the two promote regarding solidarity and equality. Though both define equality differently –
shortly reviewed – both consider that quality as an ultimate value or nearly an
ultimate value.
For
critical theory, this blog has argued that equality is the trump value. For federation theory, perhaps it falls short
of having the status societal welfare has, but it probably can be considered a prime
or co-prime (along with federal liberty) second rung value; i.e., an important instrumental
value. The moral code this blog has
offered has three descending levels of values:
trump value, instrumental values, and operational values. Equality, for federation theory, is near the
top.
So
how is equality defined by each construct?
In terms of critical theory, this blog has suggested that it be viewed
as meaning equal results. Or stated another
way, critical theory promotes that society should strive toward equal
distribution of a society’s income and wealth and that should be valued above
all other concerns.
This
calls for a struggle against agents who seek to protect inequality; that is, those
who have and enjoy higher shares of those assets. To this point, that is a condition in all
societies to some degree. That theory
uses the terms oppressors – the haves – and the oppressed – the have nots.
Given
the dialectic nature of existing inequality, that view determines there are those
who have reached true liberation – they “understand” and find intolerable the
unjust nature of inequality. Further,
they – the liberated – should unite with a sense of solidarity to pursue the
implementation of those policies that first ameliorates the consequences of inequality
and then pursue those strategies that eliminates it.
Their
overall aim would be to change the exploitive arrangements that deny the
oppressed from acquiring their fair share.
In the language of struggle, the liberated form a comradeship – a collective
force that work within the institutions of a society and strive toward a just
society and world. As the last posting
pointed out, that would be led by a liberated oppressed and joined by
liberated, former oppressors.
For
federation theory, the concern for inequality is present, even virulent, but
the extent of it is not seen by its advocates from a radical point of
view. Instead, they see justice residing
in minimum requirements being met and that, in turn, is guided by a concern for
the dignity and integrity of each person making up the polity. But that aim, as it tends to happen with critical
theory, does not abandon the free market economy.
For
them, the means of production and distribution should be run by the competitive
arrangements of capitalist markets, albeit under a regime of regulations. This blog, under this proviso, gives a
definitional term for federation theory’s view of equality; that is, regulated
equality.
As
with critical theorists, though, federation theory claims that the prime agent
to secure the aim of equality is government – only that institution can summon
the assets and authority to accomplish meaningful equality. History demonstrates that solely relying on
markets – given the vying goals of its participants – will not secure equality
of either the critical theory variety or of the kind federation theory
promotes.
But,
under federation theory the role of government policy calls for the enactment
and administration of the necessary regulatory laws ensuring that employers and
government agents distribute the assets necessary to secure dignity and
integrity for all. Usually, that would
be regulations in the form of social insurance, minimum wages, or laws
increasing competition in markets, such as labor markets, that are not purely
competitive.
For
example, when there is a high level of concentration within an industry with
one or few competitors, it forms a monopsony or close to a monopsony in which
the single or few employers (technically, buyers of labor) can set wages below
what productivity levels call for – those workers are paid below the marginal
contributions of their labor. Workers
are stuck receiving these low wages because there is a lack of sufficient
employers competing for or buying their labor.[1]
Government
could regulate that market to institute a minimum wage or a program that would
increase the number of competitors. In
either case, workers would then receive a wage closer to that wage they would
receive if the industry had a purely competitive market. If that still would not satisfactorily increase
wages so that workers’ integrity and dignity are secured, then a form of
welfare could be provided to supplement what is needed to reach that level.
Federation
theory allows for “conditions” to be attached to any handout; after all, every
person who is part of a federation does have responsibilities and duties to the
partnership and that includes, as best they can, to “carry their weight.” But the reciprocal sense is that aid is
offered when the need arises because everyone can be subject to the downturns
of life.
And
sometimes those downturns are the product of past injustices that have befallen
a person or group within the polity. For
example, the effects of structural segregation or other injustices that have
been widespread among segments of the US population. And this becomes complicated and not subject
to simplistic notions.
But
one needs to remember that whatever is devised, policy cannot ignore the
factors that allow for or secure a viable economy and that includes sustaining
incentives necessary for economic growth.
And in that, one can surmise the type of compromises federation theory
represents. Yes, it is centrally
concerned with meaningful equality, but not as a trump value. Whatever policies are devised, the welfare of
the society cannot be significantly sacrificed and that includes respecting
other values such as federal liberty, economic fulfillment, and ambition.
[1] For a more authoritative description of a monopsony,
see Linda Yech, What Would the Great Economists Do?: How Twelve Brilliant Minds Would Solve
Today’s Biggest Problems (New York, NY: Picador,
2018). Of particular interest regarding
wages, see Chapter 9. That chapter
reviews the work of Joan Robinson.
No comments:
Post a Comment