Archives

Tagged ‘Liberalism‘

Liberalism in India – a Beast that Devours By Way of Shapeshifting

February 8, 2023

By Varun Mathur

 

Mahishasura by Tyeb Mehta, 1997. [Mahishasura is a bovine asura in Hinduism. He is depicted in literature to be a deceitful demon who pursued his evil ways by shape-shifting]

I In India, with this very deep socialist ideal of equality and justice for the working class, for labour, what has happened since the 90s has birthed a new kind of beast. Liberalism has inculcated a sense of entitlement in terms of indulgent material progress, while simultaneously meting out highly compromised education on one hand. Agents of equality and progress pose the liberal identity as the ultimate emancipation. On the other hand, with the state providing vocational specialised training for heavy-machine work for example, a sense of change and development is fostered. Access to the liberal economy has replaced any real sense of justice or change in the imperial and feudal structure. The rulers are now not in some palace in the district, but sitting in board rooms in far-away places. An example where I am (India), is that the population has been forced into a destructive kind of entrepreneurship like setting up badly built theme parks / adventure parks or bnbs, selling or leasing out farming land. The idea of freedom is being able to watch reels on Instagram on a smart phone, spend money at malls and pick and choose what to watch on Netflix or something similar.

Progress and development directly mean how much money one has and can spend within the liberal economic model. And identity, and freedom, are then dependent on WHAT one spends money on. The step into the cult of manufactured personalities is complete. Even though there is some collective retention of let’s say old world philosophy, like the mystics’ poems, or even of some religious aspects of relationality, (with self/other/nature) the veneer of liberalisation, of capital and access to capital as paramount, as a means for emancipation, has degraded whatever little historical cultural trajectory one of the oldest cultures of the world possessed. Or, could have possibly been restored, even after centuries of rule by a private corporation under the banner of imperial England. There has been a very deliberate disruption of what could have been an organic trajectory of culture. Instead of ironing out the kinks in the diversity – the problems within the caste hierarchy for example, or even the in-fighting between multiple religions – the capitalist homogenisation project has forcibly fractured the collective psyche where people live unbelievably unequal lives, but seem to believe there is an escape through this homogenisation project into an equal and just way of living. So on the one hand is this great ideal, a sense of entitlement is fostered, but without the requisite integration of the individual into what is touted as a just society. Even within the liberal, culture-destroying homogenisation project, which holds its ground based on ‘giving access to better living’, the class hierarchy is itself continuously reimposed and reiterated, but under capital instead of religion, while pretending to uplift the working class and neutralise the abuse and injustice.

Only one realization is truly needed to begin the process of dismantling this kind of a system, whether in India, or anywhere else. Participation in this ‘global liberal economy’ perpetuates modern slavery in the world in absolutely unforgivable conditions. For example – a desire to have the latest phone is directly related to children working in mines, as well as the growing heaps of electronic waste littering continental coastlines and landlocked ecologies around metropolitan centres. The working class in India, who might even fight for their rights to a decent living perhaps when their survival cycles give them some respite, are forced to contend with this ‘new technological age’ by being forced to buy phones. Or ‘be left out’. Inadvertently fueling the supply chains which put to work children in mines in countries in Africa. Glorified middlemen have nothing and own nothing – they make billions from running international supply chains just like these. What is the underlying narrative? ‘Bringing the world to your doorstep’? What do we imagine is going on behind that process for every single object we desire to own? Quite literally, billions of lives are directly involved in running the mines, manufacturing and assembly plants, transportation, and retail for each object that any one person may desire to have. And that to have for a limited span of time, given how pervasive ‘changing trends’ are, and how deep the manufactured obsolescence is embedded. These kinds of supply-chains do not end when we discard an object. They continue till the unseen lands where children sift through waste, scavenging whatever they can sell, so they might be able to eat that one meal on the day. The world at my doorstep is not just that neatly packaged brand new cellphone ordered and paid for online. The world at my doorstep is also the hungry stomachs of those children in the mines and in the wastelands, it is the frail limbs of the aged who can no longer work their small farms, and their children who would rather work in call centres. So they can afford the next phone, and go to the mall. You know, develop a taste for ‘real progress’.

The dream of the single mother of two, selling vegetables in the blistering heat and freezing cold on the streets of Delhi is that her children can have access to a better life than she has had. She will do anything to get them through the education system. One that will provide them second-hand knowledge posing as experience, and eventually teach them that billionaires and celebrities are the demigods of this planet. Slums like the one where she lives will be flooded with aspirational marketing campaigns through, amazingly, freely available channels. A deluge of mind-altering propaganda. Seeding aspirations to strive to become fully part of this global project. They will become slaves to the dreams of others – those who relentless want to increase profits by any means, competing rabidly by selling the old repackaged as something new. The only thing new is always just the shiny advertising campaign. We become slaves for each other, and continue to perpetuate the cycle of neoliberal capitalism through our aspirations, where hyper-consumption is equated with abundance.

This collective delusion, of hyper-consumption and ‘all-access’ ideology being equated to abundance, must be destroyed. The root of this is the imperialised desire of the individual. The individual has no control over what it desires in modern industrial civilisation. It is indoctrinated into what it should desire. It lives a life of spiritual and financial debt and invalidation at the hands of this system. As it strives to gain the validation of the system, and perhaps even rises on that proverbial class ladder, it will continue to perpetuate slavery for itself, and for others in unseen and unknown places.

While this hunger for this kind of material abundance of single-use/throwaway culture, short life span objects continues to spread relentlessly in younger populations, the establishment has us all glued to their ‘on and off’ switch. Through the last decade the swine flu, the avian flu, dengue, and now cv19 have been normalized. The establishment can now trigger a reaction in the public at any time by printing/relaying any unsubstantiated statistic on mass media. This has been a long few years of entrainment of a new psychological imprint. Retail is therapy in times of high-stress. Indulge yourself. The world is your oyster. Consume what you can, because you will die soon. And so on, and on. And on. One must fight to get that life back before 2020 hit us all.

The result of such narratives is quite stunning and very dangerous. The abating of the pervasive fear continuously peddled over the last decades, and especially the last three years, is just a faint hope. The immense propaganda is a thick layer which will have to be negotiated to live a life anywhere close to calm or peaceful. People will make their compromises, to try and get a taste of normalcy. That ‘old normal’. One that was already pathologically abnormal and abusive.

 

[Varun Mathur has worked as Cameraman, Field Producer, and Writer/Director primarily in documentary film for multiple national and international productions since 2004. He has travelled extensively for film projects in India, western Africa, Europe, and South Africa. These projects have spanned all kinds of situations; including prisons and red-light districts in Western and Southern Africa, the upper Himalayas, Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in north-eastern India, and countless indigenous tribal regions of India. His qualifications and interests are centred on critical theory, cultural theory, indigenous belief systems, mythologies, and narrative building. He is a musician and an artist in his spare time. He lives between Naukuchiataal in the state of Uttarakhand, and New Delhi, India.]

How to Uphold White Supremacy by Focusing on Diversity and Inclusion

December 10, 2014 | 2014 in Review

Liberalism’s Inherent Racism

by Kyra

Since the civil rights movement, white people have exploited every opportunity to conceal their colonialist legacy and longstanding (ab)use of white supremacist power. They’ve proven time and again that they have no interest in rectifying that history, only in dealing with the fact that they could no longer deny the reality of those injustices. One effective tactic has been to separate white supremacy and colonialism from the way racism is understood and taught through schools, history textbooks, news media, and through any white-controlled institutions. These lessons, of anti-racism as-told-by-white-people, will be familiar to you: that racism is only explicit racial prejudice; that separatism is the essence of Jim Crow (and therefore inclusion is the antithesis to de jure segregation); and that the remedy for a racist society is a colorblind one.

All of these assumptions are grounded in liberalism: the egalitarian principle which works to ignore and erase difference rather than to undo oppression. It strives for a post-feminist, post-queer, post-racial or racially colorblind world. Liberalism as an ideology deems equal rights and equal treatment as a higher priority than? material justice, or as an effective means towards ?it. Its presumptions of equality are false, as individualist equality may be written into law and policy while material inequality thrives. It effectively abstracts and obscures power dynamics along lines of race, class, and gender. The difference between material justice and liberalism is the difference between actually making reparations for a long history of racism and countries like Austria, Finland, Hungary, France, and now Sweden removing all mentions of “race” from their legislation.

Liberalism is not the opposite of conservatism on a left-right political spectrum, but a set of values that informs various other political ideologies including conservatism and libertarianism. Even the most popular manifestations of feminism and radical political thought (anarchism, communism, and socialism) are their most liberal forms. You can recognize the influence of liberalism in any political philosophy or practice that?, ?consciously or not?, ?focuses on individual equality before social power. What is it that says that ending racism means setting aside our differences and finding commonality? Liberalism. What is it that says that we need love to bring us together and to end the hate which drives us apart? Liberalism. What is it that says to choose unity over disunion? Liberalism. What is it that says racism/sexism/sizeism hurts everyone? Liberalism.

A large public art structure with alphabetical blocks spelling out 'LOVE'.

Photo CC-BY jm scott, filtered.

All of these ideas value a certain perception of equality at the expense of those who suffer due to social inequality. That’s why you’ll notice this rhetoric so frequently employed to dismiss oppressed people who direct their anger…at their oppressors. Through a white-writing of history (and history textbooks) that erases and minimizes all of the revolts that were necessary for change, liberals are able to demand that protesters remain totally peaceful, pacifist, and nonviolent (by which they mean non-destructive of property) in the face of dehumanization, degradation, and absolute repressive violence (the actual destruction of human life). White liberals and their sympathizers take ideas and quotes from Martin Luther King out of context and use them to shame disruptive protesters as rioters and looters, dismiss more militant activists as spiteful and vengeful, blaming them all for their own conditions.

The toxic effects of liberalism are clear in diversity advocacy and its language. Take the reframing of affirmative action as an initiative to promote diversity. Affirmative action was created in recognition of a centuries-long legacy of racism and historically discriminatory hiring/admissions practices. It is remedial in nature, and requires the recognition of past and ongoing wrongs that need to be righted. In stark contrast to this, diversity emphasizes the pragmatic benefits to morale, productivity, and profits. Diversity is the practice of mixing together different bodies within a common organization, and is a prime resource to be capitalized upon by businesses and organizations that are white owned and/or operated. Diversity still benefits those in power by taking advantage of the various experiences and vantage points of different racial/gender/sexual backgrounds. Rather than respecting difference and redistributing power based on it, diversity only “celebrates” difference in order to exploit multiculturalism for its economic value.

There is a reason that diversity is consistently promoted as being beneficial to everyone, disregarding who benefits most from various arrangements of diversity. As a dominant mode of thought, we must challenge liberalism if we hope to challenge the structures of domination that it both masks and reinforces, through diversity or otherwise.

A wall that reads 'Imagine' with a peace symbol on it.

Image CC-BY Matteo Piotto, filtered.

“Inclusivity” and “exclusivity” are politically meaningless without context and divert attention away from specific power dynamics. In common use, they are assigned inherently positive and negative values without specifying who is being included or excluded. This is why you might see a group proudly promote itself as being more “open” and “inclusive” than a group which is intentionally exclusive to create a safer space for a specific marginalized group. This is because de jure segregation is so strongly associated with racism. Still, segregation is not racist in and of itself. It is racist depending on a history of white supremacy, depending on who is enforcing segregation, and depending on the material impact of said segregation.

While after a history of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, fighting for desegregation was obviously necessary, but that progress is not inherent to diversity and inclusion. They are only valuable insofar as they reduce a white stronghold on power. How would racial diversity or the inclusion of men benefit the organizational team behind Black Girl Dangerous? What about organizations like the Trans Women of Color Collective or INCITE! which could only be opened to more racial diversity through the inclusion of whites? Diversity and inclusion whitewash and undermine the very basis of their value for racial justice and feminism: providing access to resources, representation, and power to identity groups that lack them. Not only is “inclusivity” politically meaningless, but to frame the benefits of stronger representation of marginalized races, genders, etc. within “diversity” gravely strips the progress it provides of its power and political significance. There is then danger in uncritically advocating for—or even just discussing power dynamics in terms of—diversity or inclusivity.

Closed spaces for marginalized identities are essential, especially ones for multiply marginalized identities, as we know from intersectionality (not to be confused with the idea that all oppression is interconnected, as many white women who have appropriated the term as self-proclaimed “intersectional feminists” seem to understand it). Any group, whether organized around a shared marginalized identity or not, will by-default be centered around the most powerful within that group. For example, cisgender white women will dominate women’s groups that aren’t run by or consciously centering trans women and women of color. A requirement for all groups to be fully open and inclusive invites the derailment and silencing of marginalized voices already pervasive in public spaces, preventing alternative spaces of relative safety from that to form. Hegemony trickles down through layers of identity, but liberation surges upwards from those who experience the most compounded layers of oppression.

So why do so many people seeking racial justice, female empowerment, and queer liberation still choose to advocate for “diversity” and “inclusion”? They appeal to liberalism. They prevent oppression from being named. They prevent us from speaking truth to power. They make progress sound friendly to those in power. Companies can tokenize women and people of color throughout their advertising. They can get way more credit than they deserve for being not 100% white men. They can profit from the increases in efficiency and productivity associated with more diversity. All of the above ignore the fact that companies needed to have diversity initiatives to make them less overwhelmingly white in the first place; that white people are the ones in the position of being able to grant access in the first place. When we work for justice and liberation, we can’t accept progress that is conditional on being economically beneficial.

The only way to prevent that is to name oppression for what it is; to speak truth to power. If a group is dominated by whites, men, and other privileged classes, don’t let that be reduced to a diversity issue.

You may have seen the phrase before and possibly even used it yourself, but if you still focus on inclusion and diversity, you don’t truly understand: assimilation ? liberation. When we talk about diversity and inclusion, we necessarily position marginalized groups as naturally needing to assimilate into dominant ones, rather than to undermine said structures of domination. Yes, we need jobs; we need education; we need to access various resources. What we don’t need is to relegate ourselves to the position of depending on someone else to offer us inclusion and access to those resources. Inclusion is something they must give, but our liberation is something we will take. The cost of assimilation is always in the well-being and lives of those who are not close enough to power to be able to assimilate. Another less popular expression of our expression more sharply calls attention to these dangers of uncritical integrationism: assimilation = death.

 

This work is licensed under the Decolonial Media License 0.1.

 

[Kyra is a Chinese-Amerikan trans woman working to create space for radical racial justice through technology where progress has been limited to liberal white feminism. She serves on the board of directors of the Free Culture Foundation and founded the Empowermentors Collective, a skillshare, discussion, and support network for trans, disabled, and queer people of color who share a critical interest in race, gender, and technology. She Tweets in spurts and bouts @kxra.]

Classism Runs Deep | Liberalism vs. Radicalism

classism

Counterpunch

Weekend Edition May 10-12, 2013

by ERIC PATTON

What’s the difference between liberalism and radicalism? Which is “better?” How is “better” determined?

Liberalism is the belief that the king has the right to rule and that when we want him to make decisions different from those he is currently making, we ask him respectfully, even firmly, but always recognizing his ultimate right to decide.

Syrian Crisis: Three’s a Crowd (Part 1 of 3 Part Series)

Although Empire has always engaged in a civilizing mission to implant liberalism in “authoritarian” cultures, its latest incarnation of liberal imperialism is less the overt cultural colonialism of the past, characterized by Orientalist tropes, and more a campaign which markets an attractive liberal ideology to more discerning intellectual consumers. Thus, unlike its cruder predecessor, which was easier to detect and hence resist, today’s intellectual imperialism works in far more insidious ways on account of its affected benevolence and seeming universalism, both of which facilitate its internalization.

By Amal Saad-Ghorayeb

Al-Akhbar

June 12, 2012

The conflict in Syria has recast the political fault lines in the Mideast. Divisions that were once demarcated by ideology and religion, are today centered around the issue of overthrowing the Assad government. Arab leftists, nationalists and Islamists are now divided between and amongst themselves over the Syrian question, and have borne yet another quasi-movement, the anti-interventionist “third-way” camp. Third-wayers, comprised of intellectuals and activists from academia, the mainstream media and NGOs, support elements in the home-grown opposition, reject the Syrian National Council (SNC) on account of its US-NATO-Israeli-Arab backing, and reject the Assad leadership on account of its repression of dissent and its alleged worthlessness to the Resistance project.

While the third-way camp is anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine in orientation, this hardly constitutes a political position. The Palestinian cause has become deeply etched in the Arab collective subconscious and has even become an increasingly pervasive slogan in western liberal activist discourse. Now the real litmus of Arab intellectuals’ and activists’ commitment to the Palestinian cause is no longer their support for Palestinian rights, but rather, their support for the Assad leadership’s struggle against the imperialist-Zionist-Arab moderate axis’ onslaught against it.

Although part of our duty as intellectuals is to call for political reforms and a greater inclusion of the homegrown, legitimate opposition in the reform process, this must be done in a manner which neither undermines the regime’s current position vis-à-vis our shared enemies.Supporting Assad’s struggle against this multi-pronged assault is supporting Palestine today because Syria has become the new front line of the war between Empire and those resisting it. The third-way progressive intellectuals are failing to see the Syrian crisis through this strategic lens. They have shown an inability to “take a step back from the details and look at the bigger picture,” to quote Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

The third-way campaign against Assad only serves the strategy and interests of the US and Israel, who have made no secret of the fact that his fall would help them achieve their wider strategic ambitions of weakening Iran and resistance forces in Lebanon and Palestine. Moreover, agitation against the regime on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of war crimes further incites sectarian oppositionists who identify the regime with Alawis, thereby indirectly fanning the flames of Sunni-Shia tension in Syria and the region at large.