Political Theory

H01(a) - Radical and Critical Political Economy

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Robert Sparling (University of Ottawa)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Cindy Holder (University of Victoria)

Liberal Socialism: Property, Political Liberty, and the Tendency Towards Injustice: Neil Hibbert (University of Saskatchewan)
Abstract: In his remarkable book, John Rawls: Reticent Socialist, William Edmundson builds on Rawls’ application of his theory of justice as an evaluative metric for institutional regimes. Upon its application as guidelines for regime evaluation, Edmundson concludes that “liberal socialism emerges as the sole regime type capable of realizing justice as fairness.” This paper engages with Edmundson’s interpretation of the institutional requirements of Rawls’ theory of justice and compares the political tendencies of liberal socialist and welfare state regime-types. Edmundson contends that the welfare state ““tends inevitably…towards injustice” because it cannot “guarantee the fair value of political liberties.” Only by constitutionally securing public ownership of the major productive assets can liberal societies avoid the “fact of domination” of powerful economic interests that animate the tendency to injustice. I argue Edmundson fails to show that justice as fairness decisively weighs in favour of socialism against a social democratic welfare state. Nothing definitional about the latter precludes reciprocity, equalizing opportunities and human, if not productive, capital, or legislative efforts towards securing fair value of political rights, such as publicly funded elections or donation limits. These, like the development of the welfare state itself, will face considerable resistance in any case and Edmundson’s constitutional socialism won’t decisively smooth the political path to justice.

Trust in Me: Community Land Trust's use of trust as a democratic practice: Madalyn Hay (University of Toronto), Torrey Shanks (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are community groups that work to appropriate property in a given community and use it for the benefit of the community; in urban centres CLTs often provide affordable housing and green-space for communities experiencing displacement while rural CLTs often acquire farmland for accessible community farming. There are 41 land trusts in Canada. They serve a variety of purposes from anti-gentrification, displacement, and homelessness strategies, to land and green-space access. Despite the variety of missions, in all cases CLTs use the language of a ‘trust’ to describe their political practice. They explicitly invoke the legal trust—a property arrangement whereby a trustee manages property on behalf of the beneficiary—to describe their governance strategy. People in positions of power in CLTs understand themselves as acting on behalf of the community, of being entrusted by the community. This is true despite often not legally being a trust; most Canadian CLTs are charities or non-profits. The trust therefore performs some type of political work for CLTs which has not previously been explained. This paper therefore proposes to explore how CLTs us the trust to create their community level democratic governance. It concludes that CLTs us the trust to keep their governance accountable to the community. The trust is a democratic practice that creates thick bonds of obligation between the board and community. It reminds the board that they only have their position by virtue of the community's trust in them and that this trust is revocable. CLTs therefor us the trust to keep the board accountable to the community and to ensure they act to realize the community's self-expressed interests and policy goals.

Mengzian Socialism as Remedy to Imperialism: Devin Ouellette (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Kōtoku Shūsui 幸德秋水 (1871-1911) was Japan’s foremost public intellectual during the first decade of the 20th century known for his leadership role in Japan’s anti-war movement, which culminated in the publication of his 1901 book, Imperialism: Monster of the Twentieth Century. One of the earliest general accounts of imperialism to ever be written, Imperialism advanced a novel argument concerning the nature, origins, and solution to imperialism as a global problematic. While existing scholarship has focused on the socialist components of Kōtoku’s anti-imperialism, this paper examines Kōtoku’s use of Confucian philosophy, most notably the Mengzi, in his critique of imperialism. This paper argues that Kōtoku articulates a “Mengzian-socialist” political theory which hybridizes Mengzi’s moral psychology and theory of political legitimacy as residing in the welfare of the people (mínběn 民本) with socialism’s commitments to international solidarity and concern for the material conditions of the working class. In so doing, Kōtoku’s reimagines the moral-political basis of legitimate government; a reimagining which highlights the politics of collective identity formation during the turbulent times of Meiji Japan.

Nietzsche’s Debt: Values, Sovereignty, and the Identity of the State: Robert Sparling (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Nietzsche famously asked, “The breeding of an animal which is entitled to make promises—is this not the paradoxical task which nature has set itself with respect to man?” (Genealogy of Morals II.1) He proceeded to tell a philosophically influential tale about the identity of the truly sovereign individual having its origins in relationships of debt. The sovereign individual, for Nietzsche, is the one whose power and identity is intimately related to his capacity to bind past, present and future through acts of promising and fulfilling the promises made. Many critics of the global financial order have been drawn to Nietzsche’s account of debt and guilt. What does Nietzsche’s myth about the origins and philosophical meaning of debt tell us about collective debts, and particularly the debts of states? In this paper I wish to explore the interrelation of state debt and state identity through a Nietzschean lens. In many respects, the modern fixation with the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) can be read as an expression of the fevered desire for sovereign collectivities to prove the strength of their “independent, enduring will[s]”. (On such an account, strange waverings such as we see in the perpetual U.S. debt ceiling crises are products of national akrasia.) However, this paper will argue that the Nietzschean story is anthropologically and ethically dubious, and applying it to the great beast of the state is of little utility in coming to terms with the ethical difficulties of state debts. The paper thus calls into question the turn to Nietzsche to uncover the logic of the global financial order.