Democracy and the Rule of Law: Reflections on Gerald Frug

Listening to Gerald Frug talk about the concept of rule of law in relation to cities reminded me just how manipulative elites can be. Frug, a distinguished Harvard law professor, is concerned with the deconstruction of the idea of the rule of law as it is popularly understood and disseminated by politicians, businesspeople, and "think" tanks. As Frug points out, this usually is a particular model of market regulation focusing on improving the ability for individuals and groups to engage in capital accumulation. Hernando de Soto has argued in The Mystery of Capital that this, more than any other reason, is why the "third world" is still mired in poverty. In contrast to this notion of rule of law, Frug argues that its importance is in "restraining the excercise of arbitrary power".


This concept seems quite fair, but what exactly might we constitute as "arbitrary"? Fundamentally, Frug points out that arbitrary power is any decision-making authority that is not democratically excercised. This too warrants a definition: for Frug, "democracy is a lived experience" empowering people with greater control over their lives, rather than a simple electoral formula or representativeness in a legislature. Thus, Frug's ideal-type 'rule of law' is one that ensures that everyone's voice is involved in decision-making processes. As potential sources of arbitrary power, Frug cites governments, elite experts and professionals, and relevant to his city theme, neighborhood groups.

Beyond a dichotomous assertion of individuality implicit in Frug's understanding of rule of law, he hints at an essential point: if the legal system is founded, as in any representative democracy, on the arbitrary decisions of an elite minority (via the legislature and judiciary), then just how "legal" is it? Frug looks to the communal norms, customs, and checks on power in shantytowns around the world - in short the 'informal' segments of society - and determines that these arrangements are legal in their own right. The imposition of a formal legal system, especially when it is imported from afar via the WB and other development agencies, is clearly an excercise of arbitrary power that infringes on the legal structures of these state-autonomous regions. Now, the legal system of these informal shantytowns may be highly corrupt, immensely hierarchical, patriarchal, and brutally repressive - but then again, looking back on its historical development, so is our own.

Frug instead insists upon a notion of the rule of law that is flexible, situational and context dependent - one that is dynamic, not relatively static, and one that protects the "weak" from the "strong" instead of institutionalizing the power of the latter. Though he discusses this concept with reference to urban localities, he emphasizes that these local structures must not simply form an addition to the formal [national + subnational] legal structure, but radically transform it.

Elites who have a considerable stake in the particular idea of rule of law that is currently being disseminated (read: the formal liberal-capitalist legal structure) seek only to totalize its presence over society. This expansion, while often cloaked in the language of freedom and democracy, is clearly anti-democratic in the sense that it only empowers a small minority. But it is also opposed to the Frugian spirit of the "rule of law", in the sense that it seeks to bolster the hegemony of arbitrary power. This oligarchical format runs the risk of degenerating to blatant totalitarianism, as even if the content of the laws remain fairly liberal in nature, the structure of the legal system will not. Even Friedrich von Hayek warned us against this in The Road to Serfdom!

The rule of law is a welcome ideal that we must always strive for, if it is employed in the Frugian sense. But we should be intensely critical of this concept at all turns. If the bourgeois, questioning absolutism, asked "Whose rule should we submit to?", deciding among themselves on themselves via nascent "democracy", we the masses should ask the same question. Whose laws do we follow, even if we agree with many of them? Who determines which laws are right and just and which are not? Thinking about these questions for only a little while should reveal a radical disconnect between our "rule of law" and democracy.

Four Messages about Life from Spiderman 3

There is no shortage of movies indirectly (or directly) tackling the central themes of the political economic culture of the United States. I had the displeasure of watching Spiderman 3 the other night and found it to participate in the indoctrination of the American populace, alongside more prominent recent releases such as 300. Granted the entire Marvel genre has a storied history of nationalism alongside the appeal to the rebelliousness of teenagers, but Spiderman 3 reeks of pure Hollywood baloney.

The theme of the film - though it doesn't become clear until quite late, with the numerous plot developments the director crams in - is the 'choices we must make'. This is by now a tired story, and I always wonder, how many times can it get rehashed for mass consumption before people get sick and tired of it, or the additional cost of tacking on SFX filler gets to be too much? We all have the ability to bring out the good and bad within us, and so we must choose between the right and wrong, the good and evil, in life. Ok, this doesn't sound all that bad, if slightly boring - but what kind of choices are good, and what are bad? Let us examine the characters, somewhat shallowly, to find some hints.

Peter Parker is, as usual, the classic representation of the American dream. He is a nobody trying to make a name for himself in the big city. Of course, he must 'take his lumps' as he works his way up the career ladder to (eventual) success. His alter-ego, Spiderman, is also the same icon of the selfless man, giving all for fellow citizen, community, city and country - in his spare leisure time, of course. The third film stays true to this, but introduces a few variants: Parker becomes increasingly egoistic and cocky about his alter-ego, especially after the scene were the strange space-goo lands on earth, and this leads to obvious problems in his personal life. Message #1: "practice humility, or else you'll piss people off" - ok, not a terrible lesson to have kids learn.

But of course, an illegal alien arrives, in the form of an "oily" goo from space, which supposedly amplifies peoples character traits. When Spiderman is temporarily 'infected', he becomes quite - well, you'll have to watch the movie to see just what he becomes. Skip ahead to the arrival of Venom, and we see just what this alien oil is all about. Venom is the epitome of what the "foreign temptation" can do for you: bring success quickly, but ultimately corrupt who you really are. Eddie, Peter Parker's real-life enemy, is first infected, then actively embraces this "foreign temptation" as it is passed from Spiderman in, of all places, a church. The oily goo is a placeholder for a number of different symbols, but the Islamic connotation is strong. It cannot stand the sound of church bells, which is ultimately the way to defeat it. Other potential candidates are illegal aliens, due to its origins, and non-christian 'carnal passions', due to the effects that it has on people (makes them feel 'so good', leads to extensive dating, etc.). Message #2: Resist "foreign temptations" that will ultimately corrupt your true American spirit. Hmmm.

The other major enemy, the Sandman, is quite enigmatic. On the one hand, he represents the elusive Arab terrorist, always looking for money to fund his unknown plots, and able to disappear with ease. But as the movie develops, we see that this is not the main intention of the director. Instead, Flint Marko is a symbol of the wrong choices otherwise good Americans can make. Flint explains near the end of the movie that he only got involved with crime to be able to buy the medicine his daughter desperately needed for an operation. Clearly, this is the wrong thing to do. In the end, Marko's character is forgiven by Spiderman, though he is wrought with anguish, repentance, and doomed to live a solitary life, as if he were dead. Message #3: "Even if your intentions are good, it's best to avoid all of the problems associated with crime. Suck it up, and hope your child pulls through. Or lobby the Democrats to pass a universal healthcare bill".

The final character is a villain who becomes an ally. Harry represents the capitalist elite in American society. While his father was driven by a quest for greed and personal glory that ultimately led him to wage a war on the American way of life, Harry's character in Spiderman 3, bridges the gap to aid Spiderman in his efforts to conquer the foreign presence. Message #4: "Capitalism may have screwed you over in the past, but when it comes to keeping out foreign influences in order to protect America, you can count on it. Oh, and it may help you save something else too:

The supporting character, Mary Jane, is the purpose of all this manly jockeying and flexing of muscles. She is constantly used by one enemy after the other to attack Peter "where it hurts most: his heart". Clearly, we must fight for our wives (and mothers - don't forget Aunt May) if the fight for our country is to have any meaning. Much more could be said about the gender roles in Spiderman 3, but I'll leave that for the comments.

Down the Yellow Brick Road, One Last Time

I've long been in private discussions over the relationship between 'free/fair' markets, the validity of gold as a potential currency, and the role of government intervention in markets, and so this post may appear slightly out of context, but it is a response to comments made by Chris Powell of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA). The article is available here: http://www.gata.org/node/5654

The folks at GATA are not necessarily conspiratorial kooks, as they have been pejoratively described. Rather, they are ultra-right wing 'free' marketeers leading an ignorant, misguided, and manipulated - though passionate - segment of the middle-class, nostalgic for the bygone days of pre-73'. Just like, and yet opposite, their counterparts in dominant orthodox economics departments worldwide, they lead those desperate to believe the utopian call for 'free markets' by creating a conspiracy out of what is an obvious and very well-known fact: central banks do intervene and is an explicit part of their mandate.

Where this becomes especially manipulative is when the Midas-wannabes at GATA allege that the actions of all the world's central banks are aimed at the "price suppression of gold". Either this is extreme ignorance demonstrating a thorough lack of understanding about the way global prices operate in a semi-floating exchange rate system, an inane ego-mania that is likely what warrants GATA being branded 'conspiracy theorists', or most likely, a rhetorical tactic to simplify a complex (though unfair) global economy for mass public consumption which masks the elite interests that it truly serves.

The main objective of central banks (dealing with fiat currency) worldwide is to maintain the stability of their currencies, and thus national economies, in the pursuit of various distributions and allocations of wealth in society. These objectives can vary drastically, but usually aim to dampen business cycles by bailing out uber-capitalist bankers, and inducing certain consumer behaviours (in investment for example) by setting interest rates and adjusting the money supply. We can, and should, dispute who is served most by this system (consider for example, that the vast majority of bankers have obtained a safety blanket in the current sub-prime debacle while unlucky home buyers declare bankruptcy by the thousands), but we should also note that the ability to adjust the money supply somewhat arbitrarily provides a modicum of support for workers and consumers who would otherwise be flattened in the event of an exogenous shock (say a shortage in staple foods, driving up prices).

The price of currencies and commodities in this mixed or 'managed float' exchange system are mostly set by independent and institutional investors, and supposedly reflect their confidence in those currencies (though much currency trading is predatory, irrational and of course, speculative). The extent to which these currencies are impacted by this trading depends on the relative interest they attract in currency markets, and the strength of its central bank carrying out its 'management' of the price. Gold is viewed - although highly problematically - as an alternate 'safe-haven' to the US dollar, which has long maintained its hegemony in global currency markets, and thus as confidence in the US dollar declines, the Federal Reserve sells gold to buoy the price of the USD, just as Asian central bankers manage their USD reserves to set the prices of their currencies. That currencies and commodities are all interconnected in global markets is hardly a conspiracy - though some may wish to frame it that way.

Our current mixed exchange system (with the exception of a few fully-fixed, 'dollarized' economies) is the historical antecedent of the Bretton Woods system, which is itself the antecedent of a full gold standard system, explains the lingering cultural obsession with gold (which is as arbitrary as any finite, durable, and portable commodity), along with the irrational and naive nostalgia of those imagining a corruption-free and opulent 1920s. That is indeed true conservatism. Ironically, those clamoring loudest for a return to the "realities" of the gold standard, are those who undoubtedly benefited the most from the Keynesianism of the 50's and 60's - the so-called 'Golden Age', imperfect though it was. Where gold advocates are so far gone, however, is when they presume gold to be a "real" standard of value, unlike "false" fiat, seeking to secure some sort of false legitimacy. This masks the real point at issue - they are dissatisfied with the arbitrary hegemony of the USD (or the Euro, or Yen, etc.), which obviously does not benefit them directly as it does primary shareholders in the fiat system, and want to replace it with the equally arbitrary hegemony of gold. Thus, those who advocate the dissolution of the central banking system may drape their call in the language of the radical democratization of economic control, but what they are really advocating is a much darker minority class revolution against the current elite, and most certainly against the masses. It is no surprise then that major notable supporters of the gold standard are Ayn Randian Objectivists, Austrian School Economists and hard-line monetarists like Milton Friedman, conservative populist Ron Paul, and yes, even Alan Greenspan (and we know where his interests lie).

And that is really what the reification of gold is really about - the return to the gold standard - even if it is idealized as being controlled decentrally via the world price, rather than by a government of body of governments. It is gold that is true, and nothing else; gold that deserves to be hegemonic, and consequently, those that control it. It is, in the end, a utopian call for "free" markets, so akin to neoliberals, and so fundamentally ironical that it borders on farce, that is most deadly to the multidude of disenfranchised who would be told to "sink or swim". This class project has already been carried out too many times, and the story is always the same.

Supporters of gold must either admit their complicity in this class project, and engage in clear debates that will ultimately expose their true intentions, or accept that the price of gold is by no means an improvement over our current broken system. What is needed is progressive and pointed criticism of the current economic order, and suggestions towards a better and alternative future, not reactionary criticism that will ultimately work to entrench the current order, or worse, successfully push it further right. It's time to end this 'yellow brick road' fantasy, so emblematic of yet another manipulative fallacy, and finally focus on meeting the needs of all, so we can collectively explore our creative ingenuity.

What does Global Warming Threaten? A Critique of David Miliband

Just a point on a statement made by the UK's Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the United Nations the other day.

Miliband was at the UN speaking on the need for all countries to approach climate change with "common, but differentiated responsibilities", a laudable goal in and of itself. But along the way, he made a reference which seemed quite contradictory: that climate change threatens equality.

Taken at face value, this statement makes logical sense - rising water levels, drought, decreased agricultural production are likely to affect the poorest people in the poorest countries most. And in both principle and in practice, I thoroughly agree with the need to address the atrocious conditions we have created for our planet, and the people in it, therefore it's important not to take what I'm about to say out of context.

In a grand display of pomp and arrogance, Miliaband declares that "we must address the greatest longterm threat to our aspirations to tackle inequality". Given that British inequality is at a 40yr high (for a thorough study see Poverty, Wealth and Place, courtesy of the Rowntree Foundation http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdf), this statement is typical New Labour Party doublespeak. The governments of most 'western' nations have had thirty years to prove they are interested in creating even a modicum of equality. Instead, they have chosen to dismantle basic welfare institutions that at least kept inequality in check in favor of flexible accumulation for only the most wealthy. To speak of a common resolve to combat global inequality, which has already increased considerably in recent years, in light of all the efforts made by these same elites to perpetuate that inequality is beyond irony - it's macabre.

When you consider that the poorest of the poor that Miliband references have never recieved the sinister fruits of global warming and pollution, in the form of even basic comforts such as running water and 24hr access to electricity, its quite ridiculous to talk about 'common' responsibility. The history of global capitalism has demonstrated just what the commitment to fighting inequality by those benefeciary nations is: handouts to the poor, so long as they remain poor (and thus dependent on low wages) at the best of times, violent repression or silent ignorance at the worst.

To top it off, the real threat brought on by global warming is not equality. Yes, some nations will be in much better positions to weather the storm brought on by drastic changes to ecosystems, rising water levels, the influx of refugees and global depression. But there is more likely to be a reduction in the security of countries, and especially on the 'developed' countries who are so dependent on fragile infrastucture networks and grids to function, if the catastrophe that is predicted does arrive in great magnitude. Rather, the real threat that global warming will cause is to the capitalist system. Any system that can cause such grave damage to an entire planet in such a relatively short amount of time (~150-200 yrs) is not viable, and must be altered (if not drastically transformed) if these catastrophic outcomes prove correct. Urging action now is a way of trying to keep the growth machine alive, with its constant reiteration of the trickle down myth - directly anathema to the hopes of any substantive equality for the worlds poorest, even if absolute poverty levels diminish slightly.

What Miliband is really saying, is that we urgently need to resolve the crisis of capitalism brought about by global warming if we, as the developed core, want to continue to reap the advantages of the inequalities inherent in the capitalist world system. Those on the periphery need to be able to keep those agricultural and manufacturing workshops open: we can't have work stoppages due to bad weather. The world must keep watching what kind of climate change plan that views "common, but differentiated responsibilities" as integral, and see what actually emerges. If the 'west' is anything like it was - and it is - the rhetoric will far outweigh the reality.

The Trials of Hugo Chavez

For anyone following the course of events upon which Chavez has led Venezuela for the last nine years, two things are immediately clear: the mainstream American press has sought to discredit and attack his policies from day one, and the alternative, broadly 'left', press has sought to vindicate him, and where this was not possible, provide rational justification or at least explanation for his policies. I feel it is necessary to join in this rhetorical struggle by examining two articles on the recent curriculum change in Venezuela that is being ushered in with the new school year.

An AP article covering this story immediately focuses on the least important part of the story: the 'threat' of 'nationalization' if the schools do not adhere to the curriculum. Instead, an article at venezuelanalysis.com delivers a much more informative piece detailing the real newsworthy item: that Venezuela is changing its school curriculum and what they are changing it to. To be clear, this article does not shirk the statement made by Chavez that there must be public oversight of all schools within the country, and that private schools who refuse this will be forced to shut down (with the slack being picked up by the public school system - so called 'nationalization'). Yet it does so in a way this actually informative instead of simply fear-mongering.

While the AP article claims in a trite little sentence that "Just what the new curriculum will include and how it will be applied to all Venezuelan schools and universities remains unclear", the article at Venezuelanalysis.com provides an answer. "The new Bolivarian education is based on four pillars: learn to create, learn to participate and coexist, learn to value, and learn to reflect", which would include revised readings of history that take into consideration relatively recent developments in Latin American historiography. Thus, earlier textbooks glorified 'heroic' conquistadores and portrayed the development and evolution of the Venezuelan nation from the perspective of the contemporary economic elite, conveniently silencing voices in the past who in the present might pose a problem to the tenuous official nationalism geared towards capital accumulation and special privilege. AP conveniently leaves this explantion out, instead editing Chavez only to include the apparently self-explanatory phrase "They taught us to admire Christopher Columbus and Superman", which to an Anglo-American audience with the sort of education system that Chavez is decrying will only make him sound ludicrous.

Of course, Chavez's "Bolivarian" curriculum is clearly designed to serve the interests of his own state to the detriment of his capitalist and elite competitors. No curriculum can ever claim neutrality, for such neutrality does not exist, and Chavez does not deny this. As quoted on venezuelanalysis.com, Chavez states that "we want to create our own collective, creative and diverse ideology". Still, the question of the relative value of two equally normative education systems (the Bolivarian and the capitalist ones) should be secondary to a much more fundamental question. 'Nationalization', a usual suspect on the list of dirty words used to describe Venezuelan developments, in this context merely means standardizing a publicly-developed curriculum across various tiers of education. As Chavez notes, this is something that has been a pillar of western education for nearly a hundred years (to see why, take a look at George Orwell's novel A Clergyman's Daughter!). Private schools in 'developed' countries, perhaps with a few exceptions, cannot teach 'murder and mayhem' or 'bacci ball' and expect to recieve the same accreditation as public schools. Standards are imposed by the state to, at least theoretically, suit the social context in which the recipients of education are living. Hugo Chavez simply is altering the curriculum for precisely the same reasons Americans do not restrict women to home economics and men to shop class anymore or racially segregate their public education (although I understand Southwestern Baptist Seminary, a university under different regulations than public schools, is bucking this trend with regard to the former example).

Opponents of Chavez in the media usually fall into two camps. Those who know precisely what Chavez is trying to do and are worried that his success might spread to their own countries and threaten their elite privilged position, and those completely unaware of larger historical struggles who, jumping on the bandwagon of this former camp, feed off their rhetoric. It is amazing to me how much effort and toil goes into defending this privilege, when half of that effort is probably enough to yield benefits for all but the most privileged pretty comparable to what they get today. But I guess that's just the irrationality of the capitalist logic that we in the west like to infuse into our 'rational' education system.