Wednesday, July 02, 2003
(8:32 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
"Free Market Solutions"
I am coming to think that "free market" is an empty signifier, in the sense given in Laclau and Mouffe's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Everyone seems to be able to agree that the term "free market" sounds good (i.e., something "free" is automatically good, and a "market" is where you get stuff, which is generally good), but many who are opposed to corporatism, fascism, and the Bush Administration feel as though they need to oppose the "free market" with "socialist" systems. Sadly, however, the empty signifier of "socialism" is filled in with negative content in the US, and anyone advocating socialism is fighting a losing battle (usual response: "Hitler and Stalin were Socialists and they killed a lot of people!").
My proposal is that people begin hijacking the term "free market." One example is the much-contested issue of labor unions, which are usually defined as intrinsically anti-"free market." However, why not define the activities of unions, who use their economic power in order to obtain the fairest possible wages and working conditions, as precisely the "free market" at work? After all, if everyone follows their selfish ambitions for adequate food, shelter, and medical attention, that's supposed to be the "genius of capitalism"; why, then, is it supposedly anti-"free market" for unions to follow their own ambitions? If "free market" principles are to be followed simply because they are the right principles, then the supposed negative economic effects of unions should not be a problem in this scenario -- they are part and parcel of "free market" solutions to societal problems, and thus giving unions the appropriate amount of power is just the right thing to do.
The key to this strategy is that the term "free market" was always-already hijacked by the upper classes, who hide behind the principle in the hopes of obfuscating their own self-interested motives -- "The economy made me do it!" I think a similar "free market" argument might be made in favor of a strong government providing basic services such as a social safety net, health care, and national television service. I know it sounds backwards and everything, but I think it's possible. Empty concepts like "freedom" (or even "free market") have a lot of explosive potential, even when they've been emptied of all meaningful content in a particular situation.
