Comments on: Pol­i­tics against markets? http://blog.voyou.org/2008/03/21/politics-against-markets/ Lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:46:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Hjalmar http://blog.voyou.org/2008/03/21/politics-against-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-37062 Hjalmar Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:21:04 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2008/03/21/politics-against-markets/#comment-37062 Doesn't Manuel DeLanda claim, with reference to Braudel, that today's market economy should be viewed as an "anti-market" in itself? I believe he means that it isn't selforganized in the way he uses the term, but rather structured in top-down hierarchies and institutions. The (post)modern market would then, of course, be fully political in a sense. Of course, as you write this is a structure that falls outside the control of what is acknowledged as established structures of parliamentary. But there might still be a reason why an old maoist like Badiou favours a conception of the political beyond the logic of what he calls "capitalo-parlamentarism". It seems that he doesn't acknowledge capital and, hence, "the market" as unpolitical territory in any way. The difference between this position and an arendtian (or one hauntingly similar, schmittianism) position is of course that Arendt still believes in a conception of the political which contains a logic representation and some sort of parliamentarianism. If we put these positions next to eachother (in a perverse way) we would therefore have anti-markets and anti-politics (how about launching the term "post-markets" to match the "post-political"?) together. One could argue that the disapperance of classical politics would by necessity mean the disapperance of markets proper. Perhaps we should remember that old difference between politics and the political here? Politics is as gone as the market, but there might still be a place for the good old political event? Doesn’t Manuel DeLanda claim, with reference to Braudel, that today’s market economy should be viewed as an “anti-market” in itself? I believe he means that it isn’t selforganized in the way he uses the term, but rather structured in top-down hierarchies and institutions. The (post)modern market would then, of course, be fully political in a sense. Of course, as you write this is a structure that falls outside the control of what is acknowledged as established structures of parliamentary.

But there might still be a reason why an old maoist like Badiou favours a conception of the political beyond the logic of what he calls “capitalo-parlamentarism”. It seems that he doesn’t acknowledge capital and, hence, “the market” as unpolitical territory in any way. The difference between this position and an arendtian (or one hauntingly similar, schmittianism) position is of course that Arendt still believes in a conception of the political which contains a logic representation and some sort of parliamentarianism.

If we put these positions next to eachother (in a perverse way) we would therefore have anti-markets and anti-politics (how about launching the term “post-markets” to match the “post-political”?) together. One could argue that the disapperance of classical politics would by necessity mean the disapperance of markets proper. Perhaps we should remember that old difference between politics and the political here? Politics is as gone as the market, but there might still be a place for the good old political event?

]]> By: voyou http://blog.voyou.org/2008/03/21/politics-against-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-21905 voyou Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:25:38 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2008/03/21/politics-against-markets/#comment-21905 I agree with you that neoliberalism (outside of the fantasy shared by libertarians and some on the left) does involve institution building. But I think there is something to the criticism of neoliberalism as anti-political, in the sense that neoliberal institutions aren't about collective decision making in a way that one might associate with politics. I'm particularly thinking of things like the independence of the Bank of England, where the Bank is now specifically not responsible to Parliament. Of course, the independence of the Bank of England was a political decision, so I also agree that separating politics and markets is more rhetoric than reality; but it is a rhetoric that has some (if distorted) connection to reality. I agree with you that neoliberalism (outside of the fantasy shared by libertarians and some on the left) does involve institution building. But I think there is something to the criticism of neoliberalism as anti-political, in the sense that neoliberal institutions aren’t about collective decision making in a way that one might associate with politics. I’m particularly thinking of things like the independence of the Bank of England, where the Bank is now specifically not responsible to Parliament.

Of course, the independence of the Bank of England was a political decision, so I also agree that separating politics and markets is more rhetoric than reality; but it is a rhetoric that has some (if distorted) connection to reality.

]]> By: Naadir Jeewa http://blog.voyou.org/2008/03/21/politics-against-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-21833 Naadir Jeewa Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:43:30 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2008/03/21/politics-against-markets/#comment-21833 To separate politics and markets is to buy into the rhetoric, surely? Speaking as someone who favours liberalism, I don't think the more detailed explications of neoliberalism do pronounce the end of politics in any way. If anything, there is a focus on the building of strong political institutions to make sure everyone has equality of opportunity on the market. This necessarily favours redistribution. The key is to make political institutions accountable to polities, to prevent corruption, whilst also preventing different types of favouritism (ethnicity, religion, landowners, etc...). To separate politics and markets is to buy into the rhetoric, surely?

Speaking as someone who favours liberalism, I don’t think the more detailed explications of neoliberalism do pronounce the end of politics in any way. If anything, there is a focus on the building of strong political institutions to make sure everyone has equality of opportunity on the market. This necessarily favours redistribution. The key is to make political institutions accountable to polities, to prevent corruption, whilst also preventing different types of favouritism (ethnicity, religion, landowners, etc…).

]]>