Readers of The Fourth Estate should take heed to my deliberate designation of Neoliberalism as “Liberal Capitalist Parliamentary Democracy.” The term describes a political, economic and social framework guided by a shared Ideology and united around a common Weltanschauung. It presupposes that a Liberal Capitalist nation has an OECD-Type Student Economy (national educational system) and Market/Mixed Economy (national economy), a Fractional-Reserve Banking System (national financial regime) and Parliament (national government), and digital infrastructure connected to the World Wide Web (digital economy).There are commonly accepted social norms, values, and structures that characterize its own version of social status, its own version of property, and its own version of currency. Social relations are intertwined between the Parliament and the Civil Society on the one hand and the Market and the Private Citizen on the other.
It comes as no surprise that, based on my own Treatises, “Democratic Capitalism” should be interpreted as Production for Profit’s analogue to Production for Utility’s “Democratic Socialism.” The two complement each other rather than oppose each other insofar as their ideas parallel each other like the interplay between Private and Public Sectors, Supply and Demand, Kapital and Schuld, Private Property-as-Wealth and Common Property-as-Wealth, and so forth. “Democratic Capitalism” and “Democratic Socialism” in this context represent two halves of one Neoliberal whole governed by a Parliamentary Democracy, hence the technical designation of “Liberal Capitalist Parliamentary Democracy.”
But as World History can attest, the idea of equating Liberalism and Parliamentary Democracy–“Liberal Democracy” with Capitalism has not always been recognized in the past two centuries. The economic history of the late 20th century alone has shown that nations with Market/Mixed Economies and Fractional-Reserve Banking Systems do not necessarily have to adopt Parliamentary Democracy. A nation could, theoretically, maintain them under the rule of an Authoritarian supported by the wealthy, business interests, and the armed forces.
Does Neoliberalism need Parliamentary Democracy in order to implement itself in a given nation? Is the absence of Parliamentary Democracy in places like Pinochet’s Chile, the Brazilian and South Korean military dictatorships, or Apartheid South Africa merely a stopgap measure to consolidate enough Economic Liberalization and Social Liberalization to lay the foundations for Political Liberalization?
The argument that I have posited in my Treatises is that, yes, Neoliberalism eventually needs Parliamentary Democracy in order to function. Philosophically speaking, there has been centuries of contention among all kinds of people on whether Liberal Capitalist regimes are supposed to operate under Parliamentary Democracy. Karl Polanyi and Carl Schmitt were supporters of this view, whereas others like Antonio Gramsci and Friedrich von Hayek took the opposing position from their own perspectives. Either Parliamentary Democracy furthers the foundational aims of Neoliberalism or Neoliberalism does not necessarily require it.
In a Parliamentary Democracy, what is stopping elements of Civil Society from furthering their own interests by exploiting the fiscal policymaking of Parliament to expropriate each other? Why would corporate interests not want to employ lobbyists or attract think tanks to gain the audience of sympathetic MPs? Why would labor unions not want to do the same in order to break even?
As one could imagine, those questions were what made Social-Democracy, Tripartism (Social Corporatism) and Welfare Capitalism so attractive. Rather than rejecting Production for Profit and Production for Utility in favor of Production for Dasein (which would have entailed eventually adopting the Work-Standard through Economic Socialization), combining the best aspects of Production for Profit and Production for Utility seemed like the best choice. The Market and the Parliament complement each other as the Private Sector and Public Sector respectively, working in partnership with Civil Society. The most vulnerable Private Citizens are looked after by a social safety net and given support from their communities and congregations.
Every Private Citizen in a Liberal Capitalist Parliamentary Democracy should be able to participate in the affairs of Parliament (political life), Market (economic life), and Civil Society (social life). The electoral process is leveled enough for the vast majority, regardless of their social status, to attain the greatest Quantity of Kapital for the least Quantity of Schuld. Yes, there will always be exceptions (voluntary poverty has always been the norm in the armed forces and religious life), but most Private Citizens in Civil Society get their chance to sustain themselves. The advancement of the “Democratic Capitalist” is tempered by the concurring advancement of the “Democratic Socialist” because both are drawn from the same Neoliberal Weltanschauung.
It is here that we begin to undercover “Modernization Theory,” the idea that Neoliberalism cannot survive in the State of Total Mobilization without a synthesis of Liberal Capitalism and Parliamentary Democracy. Because Liberalism emanates from the State of Natural Rights, the metaphysical paradigm of the Enlightenment, it needed to reinvent itself as “Neoliberalism” to perpetuate itself in the State of Total Mobilization. Without Parliamentary Democracy, the Liberal Capitalists become no different than those Cold War-era Authoritarians who cemented their political power by cultivating Economic Liberalization. That is why the Liberal Capitalists have sought to promote Parliamentary Democracy in opposition to the Council Democracy of the Conservative Socialists.
Markets may steer the direction of policymaking in Parliament, but they do not command National Sovereignty over Civil Society, whether in the Real World or in the Digital Realm. Parliaments may intervene in Markets, but they cannot sustain themselves without drawing from the Kapital of Civil Society. When the Private Sector falters, Civil Society expresses disapproval by shifting their spending habits and compelling Parliament to provide a Public Sector alternative. Conversely, when the Public Sector falters, Civil Society expresses disapproval by shifting their voting habits and compelling the Market to provide a Private Sector alternative. To nationalize or to privatize: that was the question from yesteryear.
In both cases, Civil Society actually has no political-economic power of its own. Only the fact that Civil Society is able to choose between alternatives is what gives this motley collection of Private Citizens the illusion that they have power. Once those choices are gone, Civil Society begins to develop the realization that it was and continues to be powerless. The electoral process functions the same way as the social safety net.
Categories: Uncategorized
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a comment