Spivak, Butler & Arendt we clever girls?

 The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism has an article by Noa Ben-Asher on Spivak & Butler's 'who sings the Nation State?' It begins with a typically foolish quote from Hannnah's Aunt. 

'With word and deed we insert ourselves into the human world,

Dumb people who are completely paralysed are still part of the human world 

and this insertion is like a second birth,

No. Mummy suffered a lot of pain during our first birth. If we say nice things and do good deeds, she is greatly pleased. 

in which we confirm and take upon ourselves the naked fact of our original physical appearance.

Nonsense! Our deeds may involve putting on make-up and wigs. Also, people appreciate it if we conceal our physical appearance by wearing clothes.  

This insertion is not forced upon us by necessity, like labor,

Arendt was forced to write shite because of the necessity of earning dollars 

and it is not prompted by utility, like work .. .

Consumption yields utility. Work yields disutility. Hannah was a stupid as shit.  

.[I]ts impulse springs from the beginning which came into the world when we were born and to which we respond by beginning something new on our own initiative. - Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition

She began nothing new. She wrote stupid shite so as to make a bit of money. Still, she fucked Heidegger and that must be worth something.  

INTRODUCTION Who sings the national anthem?

At the Superbowl, it tends to be a Grammy award winner like Jon Batiste. 

Who says "I Do"?

I do.  

This Review offers an analogy between two forms of resistance to legal discrimination by legally marginalized national and sexual minorities: singing the national anthem in Spanish in the streets of Los Angeles in the spring of 2006, and public marriage ceremonies by marriage outlaws.

Both don't matter in the slightest. Neither do Spivak and Butler.  

Who Sings the Nation State? is a discussion between philosophers and cultural theorists Judith Butler and Gayatri Spivak about the possible meanings for politics, rights, and belonging of the public act of undocumented immigrants singing the national anthem in Spanish.

In 1945, the US Government commissioned a Peruvian immigrant, Clotilde Arias, to compose an official Spanish language version titled El Pendon Estrellado. It didn't catch on. President Bush had said the Anthem should be sung in English- though there is no legal basis for the claim- and some people 'defied' him by singing a hip-hop 'Nuestro Himno' in Spanish- which was perfectly legal. But this did not change their immigration status. The thing was a stunt which had no political impact whatsoever. 

Although this act of singing may not produce any real results in immigration laws, the authors offer a fascinating analysis of the ways in which this act of singing can be politically significant.

But it wasn't. So their 'analysis' was useless.  

The fact that a marginalized group sings a song of belonging in the public sphere of a nation whose current laws do not indicate such belonging is a contradictory moment that reveals a gap between legal freedom and the actual practice of freedom.

Nope. The US had created an official Spanish version of the national anthem. Anyone was free to sing it but they gained nothing thereby. There is no gap between 'legal freedom' and the actual practice of it. This is because the law is concerned with what actually happens. I may say that Beyonce is denying me my freedom by keeping me imprisoned as her sex-slave. Sadly, the law can't free me from her embrace because I am not actually her prisoner.  

Therefore, this act of singing can be seen as the incipient moment of a claim to rights.

It is likely that the people in question had already made a legal claim of some sort or were hoping to do so quite soon. What they sang or didn't sing was irrelevant.  

The right to marry is also often viewed as the legal expression of belonging to the society in which one lives.

No. It is viewed as a function of your age and legal competence. Citizenship or permanent or other residency is a legal expression of belonging to a particular place.  

Thus, recent bans on same-sex marriage such as Proposition Eight in California

which was found unconstitutional. Same sex marriage is legal in California. In 2024, this right was incorporated into the California constitution. 

have been characterized as a low point for LGBT rights in the United States.

The solution was to approach the courts and, later on, to get enough support for Proposition 3 such that the right was written into the Constitution. Singing or dancing or whistling a merry tune had no effect whatsoever.  

This essay argues, however, that today we face a unique opportunity for radical political action that engages marriage laws in ways other than direct appeals to legal inclusion. LGBT people and other marriage outlaws can engage the public sphere by performing public marriage ceremonies.

They are legal in all 50 states since Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). However, even when they were illegal, same sex wedding ceremonies were legal though the marriage was not recognized as such. 

 I suggest that performance of public marriage ceremonies by couples and groups whose marriages are not recognized by current state laws may be understood as performative contradiction and political speech-action.

They were neither. The aim of such ceremonies, from the Seventies onward, was to change perceptions and expectations regarding same-sex marriage. There is now a question as to whether siblings should be allowed to marry to enjoy the same tax advantage as couples. On the other hand, you also have people marrying themselves. Sadly, my suit for alimony from myself has not proceeded very far because my lawyer is my neighbour's cat. 

Butler said-

The assertion not only claims the anthem,

actually it repudiates 'bellicose' aspects of it. What it does claim is the right of citizenship for kids who may have been born elsewhere but who are working and living in the US. What they want is an amnesty and a path to citizenship. That is 'practical politics'. Surely, a political party will want to sponsor this so as to gain a 'vote bank'?  

and so lays claim to rights of possession,

rights of 'oikeiosis', not possession. This is a hip-hop anthem, not a property claim.  

but also to modes of belonging, since who is included in this "we?" For the "we" to sing and to be asserted in Spanish surely does something to our notions of the nation and to our notions of equality.

It says Hispanics (especially those who have some Native American heritage) are part of America just as immigrants from Europe became part of America. The National Anthem has been sung in German and Yiddish and many other languages by new immigrants.  

It's not just that many people sang together-which is true but also that singing is a plural act, an articulation of plurality.

Choral harmony is plural but the hip-hop version gave scope to individuals singers.  

I suppose there may have been a time when people thought it contradictory for a non-Italian to sing Italian songs more particularly if they dressed up as women when they were fat, elderly, bleck men like me. Sadly, the drag show has made 'performative contradiction' utterly routine.

[T]he street is also exposed as a place where those who are not free to amass, freely do so.

Butler thinks Hispanics weren't allowed to walk down the street.  

I want to suggest that this is precisely the kind of performative contradiction that leads not to impasse but to forms of insurgency.

Did you know that dudes who dress up as Dolly Parton and who sing 'Jolene' generally go on to successful careers with Hamas or Al Qaeda? 

For the point is not simply to situate the song on the street, but to expose the street as the site for free assembly.

Because previously, when people wanted to go on a march, they refused to use the streets and confined themselves to the sewers.  

At this point, the song can be understood not only as the expression of freedom or the longing for enfranchisement- though it is, clearly, both of these things-but also as restaging the street, enacting freedom of assembly precisely when and where it is explicitly prohibited by law.'

But walking down the street singing a song isn't prohibited by law. The author confirms this

A clarification of this understanding of the right to assembly is necessary here.

To be clear, Butler is either a liar or stupid beyond belief. 

The above assertion that undocumented immigrants do not enjoy First Amendment protection of the right to free assembly is imprecise.

It is false.  

Indeed, aliens within the United States are entitled to the protection of certain constitutional provisions, including the First Amendment. Those who sang the anthem in the streets of Los Angeles enjoy the same First Amendment rights to free assembly that any U.S. citizen would. Therefore in that sense, there is no performative contradiction on First Amendment grounds because the singers were not taking a right that was formally denied to them.

Butler was lying. 

Nonetheless, Butler's notion of performative contradiction may still have purchase for two reasons. First, the singing of the anthem in the streets of Los Angeles by undocumented immigrants can be seen as taking a right to free assembly that is de facto denied to them.

But it isn't de facto denied to them. It never has been. Thus Butler's notion has no fucking purchase.  

By this I mean that the danger of deportation and other legal sanctions that undocumented immigrants face when singing in the streets makes their freedom to assemble theoretical.

No. It is difficult to arrest a big group of people. Their freedom to assemble is more effective by reason of their doing it en masse.  

While everyone (citizen and non-citizen) has the formal First Amendment right to sing the anthem or any other song in the street, undocumented immigrants face the threat of deportation if they do.

They face that threat if there are plenty of enforcement agents and very few undocumented people. There is safety in numbers.  

So the street is symbolically important here,

It is actually important because you can't assemble in the clouds. Either you get together on a street or in a park or other such public space.  

because by exercising their First Amendment right of free assembly, immigrants can make the irony of having such rights but not others visible in the public sphere.

They have no means of doing so. Who can tell just by looking at a swarthy dude singing a song whether he was born on the wrong side of the Rio Grande?  

Second, the act of singing can be seen as laying a claim to equality-related rights (such as the right to work) that the immigrants do not enjoy.

But they actually make that claim in both spoken and written words! Moreover, they do this in English. Non-Spanish speakers have no means of knowing what is meant by a Spanish hip-hop song.  

In that sense, when immigrants sing "somos iguales" ("we are equal") in the middle of the anthem there is a demand for broader substantive equality.

But in a superior sense they demand it when they say 'we are equal. Give us the same rights as people born here.'  

This singing thus becomes a radical symbolic speech act asserting an equality that is in fact denied by the prevailing legal regime.

No. The radical symbolic speech act is saying 'give us citizenship. Also, hand over your property and virgin daughters.'  

Saying "I am equal" when one is in fact not equal is the core of the contradiction.

Only in the sense that my saying 'I am a cat' when I am not in fact a cat is the core of a contradiction. However, it is easily resolved by people agreeing I'm a great big pussy.  

For these two reasons, the act of singing the anthem in public can fairly be depicted as a "performative contradiction."

It is no such thing. Suppose a bunch of guys who want citizenship say 'don't give us citizenship. Deport us immediately.' would there be a performative contradiction. However, the moment someone points out that these dudes are indulging in irony or sarcasm the contradiction disappears. 

And while saying "I am equal" does not in fact make the speaker equal in the present or even in the future,

it may do, it may not.  

the authors eloquently maintain that such performative contradictions are not useless.

They don't exist.  

Instead, the demand for freedom and equality is "the incipient moment of the rights claim, its exercise, but not for that reason its efficacity."' 

Not if the demand had already been made through legal and political challenges. In that case, singing during a demonstration is not an 'incipient' moment. It is part and parcel of an ongoing political and legal campaign. 'Efficacity' has to do with the impact of the song. Did it cause voting patterns to change or did it attract funding from well heeled donors? With hindsight, the thing was a stunt cooked up by a British Music producer. I suppose he made some money from it. That's Capitalism for you.  

Therefore, the singing is politically significant because "[t]here can be no radical politics of change without performative contradiction."

Sure there can. Trotsky said 'I will kill those who oppose Communism.' Then he killed those who opposed Communism. True he may have dressed up as Mae West and may have kept singing 'She'll be coming round the mountain' but there was no 'performative contradiction' because he said he'd kill and then he killed. 

Further, "[t]o exercise a freedom and to assert an equality precisely in relation to an authority that would preclude both is to

overthrow that authority or cause it to bend to your will 

show how freedom and equality can and must move beyond their positive articulations.

Which just means getting what you say you want. There is no 'performative contradiction' there. Washington wanted the Brits to fuck the fuck off. He kept killing them till they fucked the fuck off. That's it. That's the whole story.  

'Namely, even if actual equality will appear in no other universe than that of the speech act itself that says, "I am equal," this utterance is politically significant as the birth of the rights claim.

Only if saying 'I am a cat' is the birth of a rights claim and highly significant politically.  

This gap between the reality of equality and its utterance makes the claim radical because it performs the contradiction by saying "I am" (equal) when one in reality is not.

I am very radical because I say I am a cat. Trotsky wasn't radical at all. He didn't even claim to be a walrus.  

Such performative contradictions "must be relied upon, exposed, and worked on to move toward something new." 

What new things did these two elderly imbeciles move towards?  

Thus, "we can understand it as a mobilization of discourse with some degree of freedom without legal legitimation on the basis of which demands for both equality and freedom are made." 

But singing and asking for citizenship are both legal activities. You may say, 'it is illegal to demand to be recognized as a cat when you are nothing of the sort'. But, the truth is, there's no law against saying you are a cat even if you more closely resemble a walrus. 

 Thus, although public singing cannot legalize undocumented immigrants or grant them equal rights under the law, it makes a demand on freedom that often goes unobserved by legal theorists.

Legal theorists may be stupid but they are aware that foreigners may seek naturalization in a country. Moreover, there may be political movements within a country which demand citizenship rights for undocumented individuals. At one time, it was plausible that a liberal SCOTUS would go further down the road of Plyler vs Doe (1982) in increasing the rights and entitlements of undocumented workers and not just their children. As things have developed there is considerable variation across the country. It remains to be seen whether Trump's attack on birth-right citizenship and mass deportation survives legal challenges. 

Freedom is an ongoing process, and "to make the demand on freedom is already to begin its exercise."

No. Ask the kids who assembled in Tiananmen or Tahrir Square. In my own sordid and unhappy life, I have found that demanding an exercise bike- even buying one on Amazon- does not mean one has already begun to exercise. 

This demand underscores "the gap between [freedom's] exercise and its realization." 

Right wing economists, back then, tended to favour granting citizenship to the undocumented. I suppose the dirty little secret here is that people assume that, once documented, such people will quit the horrible jobs nobody else wants to do.  

This public manifestation of the gap brings it into public discussion "in a way so that that gap is seen, so that that gap can mobilize." 

Very true. If women can get together on the streets and lift their skirts so that men are able to see that they don't got no dicks, then that gap- where the dick should be- can mobilize and invade Poland in a manner bound to warm the cockles of Hannah's Aunt's heart. As Butler says "Arendt is probably one of the first twentieth century political theorists to make a very strong case for performative speech, speech that founds or 'enstates' a new possibility for social and political life." Sadly, Arendt didn't tell Hitler to fuck off. She didn't even lift her skirt and display her vagina to him. This caused the Second World War. Later, she fucked off to Jim Crow America but once again refused to performatively display her vagina with the result that Hispanics were banned from singing or walking down the street. Spivak, on the other hand, pointed out that Hannah was White. Also she did not have a beard. Did you know Tagore had a beard? Who else is writing National Anthem? Why you stupid white dykes are not knowing Tagore? Can you even sing 'Jana Gana Mana'? Fuck off you useless sows! Just because you are White you are thinking you know Kali Marx. I am from Bengal. Only Bengalis knowing Marx gud. 

Consider Hannah's notion that there are three

fundamental human activities: labor, work, and action."

It is totally wrong! Bengalis are knowing there is only one fundamental activity- viz. talking bollocks. What else did Hannah do?  

These three activities are fundamental "because each corresponds to one of the basic conditions under which life on earth has been given to man."

But those conditions are the same as those given to monkeys and lizards.  

The activity of labor "corresponds to the biological process of the human body,

Hannah's labour consisted of shitting out silly books.  

whose spontaneous growth, metabolism, and eventual decay are bound to the vital necessities produced and fed into the life process by labor." 

Hannah hadn't noticed that lots of people don't do a stroke of work in their lives.  

The activity of work "corresponds to the unnaturalness of human existence,

beavers work harder. Even Simone de Boudoir was known to bite trees and fell them so as to create dams.  

which is not embedded in, and whose mortality is not compensated by, the species' ever-recurring life cycle." 

Most people think their lives of toil are well enough compensated if their kids and grandkids get to live large.  

Work provides things that are "'artificial' ... [and] distinctly different from all natural surroundings."

Hannah didn't understand that 'natural surroundings' are the product of work. That's why Central Park doesn't have a lot of cougars who pounce upon and eat visitors.  

Action is "the only activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter,"

she means political action. But she is wrong. Political action may involve using swords or guns to kill and replace your rivals. Also, handing out gold or diamonds can be useful.  

and which "corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world. '

Man inhabits the earth. Men are brief sojourners on the planet.  

'For Arendt, "this plurality is specifically the condition... of all political life."

It is also the condition of all economic and cultural life. So what?  

The problem is that "[while] we have become excellent in the laboring we perform in public, our capacity for action and speech has lost much of its former quality since the rise of the social realm banished these into the sphere of the intimate and the private.' 

Arendt hadn't noticed that the social realm includes political parties where people gas on about principles and policies. Some of those people end up as Senators or Presidents or Governors of Provinces.  

Arendt's theory is that our modem age has "carried with it a theoretical glorification of labor and has resulted in a factual transformation of the whole society into a laboring society."

Arendt herself was a coal miner as was the late Queen.  

The tragedy is that "[ilt is a society of laborers which is about to be liberated from the fetters of labor, and this society does no longer know of those other and more meaningful activities for the sake of which this freedom would deserve to be won. '

Hannah got paid for writing this shite. It wasn't nice work but it was all she could get. Immigrants can't be too picky in such matters.  

Action is significantly different from work and labor because it is "not forced upon us by necessity, like labor, and it is not prompted by utility, like work.' 

Arendt was wrong. The Polis had politics because if it didn't it would, of necessity, be conquered and enslaved.  

Namely, there is a special set of activities that Arendt has in mind, and that she demonstrates through Greek history, philosophy, and culture.

She didn't know Greek history. The fact is, what she took to be a leisured class was kept busy with business affairs in the same manner as lawyers and stockbrokers and bankers and policy analysts. Plato ran a school as did Aristotle. His pupil was Alexander who worked hard to create a big Empire. Even Socrates was a soldier.  

The ancient Greeks practiced these activities in public, though only once labor and work were taken care of in the household.

Simon the Shoemaker would philosophize while at work in the Agora. All the dudes Socrates bumped into were either busy about their own affairs or were studying so as to fit themselves to do so.  

The only purpose of action was the unique deeds and speeches in the public sphere.

No. Those deeds and speeches had to do with expanding their Empire or defending against hostile polities. A lot of this had to do with economic and geopolitical negotiations and deal making.  

This was politics. Thus, "[t]o act, in its most general sense, means to take an initiative, to begin ... to set something into motion ... .'

No. It means to expend energy. Following custom, rather than showing initiative, is still action. So is ending something rather than beginning a thing or setting it in motion. Arendt was simply stupid.  

Although this may be shocking or offensive to some today, what Arendt refers to as action was not efficient, predictable, or rational.

Because she was stupid. For the Greeks, actions were efficient, predictable and rational. Inaction- 'aergia'- is torpor and, at a later time, it was associated with mania. Not for nothing did Foucault say 'madness is the absence of work'.  

Rather, "[i]t is in the nature of beginning that something new is started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before ....

Action seldom has this quality. What is being described is more like 'accident' or 'unintended consequence'. We may say that an 'Epimethean' action has this quality because foresight is lacking. Equally, it may be the result of the action of some God which prevents foresight from carrying through its plan.  

[T]he fact that man is capable of action

just like lizards 

means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.

No. It is infinitely improbable that a lizard will become a man or a man will turn into a lizard. Don't expect any such thing even if you are as stupid as Hannah's Aunt. 

Action is expressed by speech and in public.

Legal actions brought before the Ecclesia may have had this quality but there were other actions- e.g. mutilating statues of Hermes- done in secrecy and silence which were even more politically consequential. 

It "becomes relevant only through the spoken word in which [one] identifies [oneself] as the actor, announcing what he [or she] does, has done, and intends to do."

We too have depositions and statements made before committees of enquiry. But more consequential actions may occur secretly and silently.  

" Speech is more important in action than in any other human activity

This is false. We vote in silence and secrecy. Voting is the most consequential activity in a Democracy. Speech is important in education and communication.  Political actions are consequential if they are deeds not words. 

because "[i]n acting and speaking, [humans] show who they are, reveal actively their unique personal identities and thus make their appearance in the human world .... 

They do so by having bodies and by making those bodies visible. Speech is not important. A highly consequential political decision may be made on the basis of a show of hands.  

To be political, speech and action can only take place in public,

No. An agreement dangerous to the polity may be made secretly and with no words exchanged. Equally, the very sight of two supposed rivals entering the debating chamber arm in arm may cause a highly significant political convulsion. By contrast, guys giving long speeches may be safely ignored. They are just talking is all.  

"where people are with others and neither for nor against them-that is-in sheer human togetherness."

Like at a football match. But that isn't political at all.  

The publicity of the act is crucial here because "[w]ithout the disclosure of the agent in the act, action loses its specific character and becomes one form of achievement among others.'

Nonsense! We get that if the vast majority vote for one thing though they said they would vote for another, then there is an action with a specific character which gives the lie to what was previously vociferously maintained. This is also true of 'voting with your feet'.  

In sum, Arendt's The Human Condition defines the Greek form of political action as (1) performative speech,

The silly bint believed that the speeches Greek writers put into the mouths of historical characters were actually uttered.  

(2) in public,

or in secret- e.g. the mutilation of the statues of Hermes 

and (3) that does not directly arise from the human conditions of work and labor.

Everything arose from that. The Sophists got paid just as Hannah's aunt got paid.  

In the context of Who Sings the Nation-State?, singing the anthem may be seen as political action.

Because it was political. By contrast, singing 'Gangnam style' was not. 

Bertrand Russell often pointed out that prior to 1914, White people could go and settle almost anywhere in the world. True, in some places there might be a barrier to their acquiring citizenship but this scarcely mattered. The Great War changed all that. Even so, it wasn't till after the Second World War that the notion of an 'illegal alien' gained currency. A person may be hardworking and honest but still be considered a criminal simply by reason of where he was born. He could be sent to jail and then deported.

The question arose whether something could be done for the millions of people who, as national borders were re-drawn, had been rendered stateless. Might this involve some new political entity which wasn't the Wilsonian nation-state? The answer was no. Either refugees were assimilated or else they were left in limbo. Some might have travel documents of some description but most would lack even that. By and large, the solution was to pay a bribe and get papers by fair means or foul. But, many hadn't the money to do so. They were doomed to becoming a perpetual underclass- like the Romani in Europe. 

Spivak and Butler were not stateless. Butler was American. Spivak held an Indian passport but was a permanent resident of the US.  Hispanic undocumented migrants in the US were not stateless. There was some country to which they could be deported to. The question was whether this was economically desirable or politically feasible. It remains to be seen whether Trump, for all his bluster, is really prepared to crater the US economy by deporting those who do the dirty jobs while simultaneously destroying global trade. Meanwhile, I suppose Trump should be grateful for Campus Marxists like these two elderly ladies. They helped him win. The question is how much America and the World will lose by their shrill imbecility. 

.

 

Judith Butler's magical Marxism

The word 'proletariat' comes from the Latin word  proletarius, which means "maker of offspring". Women of child bearing age are proletarians in the true sense of the word. If women refuse to have children unless they are sure those children will enjoy a high material standard of living, then 'socially necessary labour time' embedded in commodities will have a higher value because workers have to remunerated a higher level. Thus, ceteris paribus, a country where women won't have babies unless the labour of the household is well remunerated, will have high per capita income. Sadly, if there is unrestricted immigration or if there is a military threat of invasion, this will not be the case. 

One may say that, if migration is controlled and the country possesses a sufficiently strong military deterrent, then Feminism is part and parcel of Marxism- or vice versa- in that both aim to raise the material standard of living of the working class. The division of labour here is that Feminism reduces the supply of labour while Marxian policies (ideally speaking) improves the supply side conditions by promoting more efficient use of Land and Capital. 

A different view is taken by contemporary feminists- more particularly those influenced by Judith Butler. Consider the following abstract from a recent academic paper- 

Feminism and Marxism: Questions on the Field of Struggle Angela Dimitrakaki* *Senior Lecturer in Contemporary Art History and Theory at the University of Edinburgh

 

Opening with a discussion of the relationship and tension between Marxism and feminism, the article argues for the specificity of Marxist feminist analysis in relation to other currents of feminism on the left. Drawing on Susan Watkins, the article contends that capitalist strategy has contributed to shaping the intellectual trajectory of feminism as known today.

So, this article will ignore Feminism in Marxist countries. It will only focus on a type of analysis known to have failed and which remains ineffectual because it is practiced only in Western Liberal Democracies of a Capitalist type. This would be like looking at Jewish studies in the Ayatollah's Iran. It may be that such a thing exists but it keeps very quiet because Iran is not a country which is friendly to Judaism. There is no point focusing attention on it because whatever it might be, it is not successful or well respected.  

This trajectory developed under a complex hegemony that entailed, among other things, the Cold War

which was good for Feminism because women's labour and brain power might make the difference between victory and defeat 

and the end of Bretton Woods

which was brought about because former colonies or protectorates wanted a better deal for the export of vital commodities like petroleum.  

in relation to postmodernism

which curled up and died when I was a young man 

and cultural imperialism,

which does not exist. Hollywood heroines now beat each other up using Chinese Kung Fu. They maintain their slim figures by eating Sushi and doing Yoga. 

ideological uses of the ‘middle class’,

which, in America, means Joe Lunch-pail.  

and technologies that increasingly challenge the clear distinction between production and reproduction.

There are no such technologies. You can't order a baby off Amazon.  

The analysis is specifically concerned with (a) how histories of reactionary but also progressive ideas formed under this hegemony

but Marxism failed completely. So did third wave Feminism. Why? One reason was that only very stupid people went in for them.  

(b) the pull of/to immateriality

This is Judith Butler's notion that 'the materiality of the body, including sex and gender, is not a pre-existing, natural reality,

Which is why I should be allowed to attend a girl's boarding school even though I am an elderly man

 but rather a product of discourse and power relations, constructed through language and social norms

Which is why I should be considered as both Beyonce and a cute and cuddly baby Panda. 

in a perceived ‘post-industrial’ society,

not to mention the 'post-IQ' society which is to be found in Departments of Women Studies, Queer Theory, etc.  

and the relevance of both to feminism.

The relevance is that female candidates- like Kamala Harris- can be accused of caring more about Transgender people than they do about ordinary voters who can't afford to pay their bills. Also, if you say I should not be allowed to attend a girl's boarding school, then you are a fucking TERF and should be cancelled. 

The article revisits the debate of Judith Butler and Nancy Fraser from 1997

Butler thought Fraser was against Queer folk. Fraser denied this. The wider problem was that Marxism admits that both men and women gain when the latter are released from exploitation and are paid in a fair and equitable manner for the work that they do.  

as encapsulating the roots of a divide within left feminism – one related to understandings of intersectionality, a popular concept also in Marxist feminism.

The question was whether the Lesbian Feminist- e.g. Audrey Lorde or Adrienne Rich- was superior to the heterosexual Feminist. Surely, true Feminism is about boycotting dicks? But where does this leave the woman who decides to go under the knife to get a dick or the man who gets his dick chopped off so as to get a vagina? The answer was- nobody fucking cares, mate. Marxism was about workers becoming better off. So was Feminism. It wasn't about crazy peeps saying 'boo to dicks! Dicks cause RAPE! Ban all dicks!'  

Intersectionality brings together salient political categories (such as gender, race, class),

so as to constitute a circular firing squad. The privileged White woman who brings class action suits to raise the pay of female workers is clearly a Fascist cunt because she isn't a Lesbian and isn't disabled and isn't bleck. She should fuck off and die. All White peeps should do so. Turtle island must be returned to the disabled Lesbians of colour who used to graze on its vast prairies. White men came claimed they were buffalos and shot them. Fuck you White Men! Fuck you very much!

the question for Marxist feminism being: how?

In a useless manner. We need to explain to Queer Crips who are also obese and thus can't get a date that they are being oppressed by Capitalism just as much as the disabled buffalo of colour.  

It is argued that intersectionality, coined at a specific moment of American cultural history and in relation to postmodernism’s spatialising imaginary, is not always and necessarily compatible with Marxist feminism’s focus on a social totality forming out of a mode of production and reproduction.

In other words, Queer Crips should just kindly fuck off rather than bore us to death with their stories about how being obese means they can't get into the best night-clubs.  

To demonstrate this, the article concludes by considering Ashley Bohrer’s influential interpretation of intersectionality.

It is so influential that Donald Trump often quotes it to Elon Musk. Chairman Xi decided to undergo gender reassignment surgery after reading Bohrer.  

Overall, the article argues for a Marxist feminism that attends closely to the key tendencies, possibilities and contradictions of 21stcentury capitalism and what hegemony consists of - as a first step towards re/thinking the priorities and specificity of struggle.

What struggle? That of the people of Ukraine? I suppose, Europe must ready itself to send more and more of its young people into that meat-grinder. Hopefully, disabled lesbian buffalos will be conscripted on an equal basis. 

It must be said, the author being Greek, isn't utterly stupid. She understands that any economic regime will want to raise productivity and incentives for productivity. Can Marxism do this better than Capitalism? Sure, if it generates more rapid general purpose and total factor productivity. Moreover, it can probably take swifter action against 'repugnancy markets'- e.g. prostitution- and firmly put down reactionary religious or other misogynistic ideologies and practices. Indeed, Chairman Xi can 're-educate' millions of Muslims and work directly with Muslim women to raise their productivity and life chances. 

Capitalism thinks it can achieve ‘parity’ between ‘women’ and ‘men’ in a few generations.

No. She herself quoted the World Bank as saying that at the current rate of progress it would take 123 years to close the gender gap in remuneration. It is obvious, that structural changes- e.g. the use of AI and robotics- may reverse gains made in recent years if employment in high value adding STEM subject fields remains disproportionately male.  

It believes in ‘progress’. What does feminism think?

Feminism thinks feminism turned to shit because stupid professors stuck their oar in. Ignore it and get on with your life.  

Feminism is divided. Even as feminism sees that capitalism generates a social reality where women are oppressed overall, many feminist currents cannot or won’t see that in capitalism women also exploit women.

This also happens in Lesbianism.  

That is, such feminist currents cannot or won’t understand the meaning of class in its historical specificity.

So, this smart lady thinks Feminism should be a circular firing squad where women from poorer families scream abuse at those from richer families. I suppose the latter can retaliate by saying 'fuck off back to the stinky shithole you came from. Anyway, I'm Lesbian and thus better than you.'  

I suppose, 'class antagonism' means the demand by poorer people that richer people pay much more in tax. The problem here is that some richer people can emigrate or otherwise avoid taxes. Marxian exploitation just means confiscation of 'economic rent' or 'consumer surplus'. But if supply and demand are elastic then there is no 'rent' or 'surplus' to confiscate. What Marxism and Capitalism and any other sort of Economic theory are about is raising general purpose productivity (in which case supply becomes more elastic and exploitation less possible) as well as total factor productivity (e.g. making the legal and financial and educational and administrative system more efficient). 

In a recent book titled 'Judith Butler and Marxism: The Radical Feminism of Performativity, Vulnerability, and Care' Elliot C. Mason & Valentina Moro ask-

What would a Butlerian Marxism look like?

A can of worms. The woman is demented.  

Marxist criticisms of Butler range from

saying she is stupid to saying she is ignorant, stupid, crazy and utterly useless 

careful comparisons of forms to the total dismissal of an unpolitical, merely cultural anarchy.

Crazy lesbian pretending she is an 'intellectual'.  

None of these criticisms, however, focuses on what seems to most closely unite these two projects: the universal abolition of the universal.

Which is like the bus that runs over itself.  

While Marxist communism is focused on the abolition of value and property,

only after scarcity has ended. Otherwise it is about 'to each according to his contribution'. Ask Chairman Xi. He is a genuine Communist.  

Butler is consistently concerned throughout their corpus with the abolition of the subject as the universal form of social relations,

 There is no universal form of social relations. Moreover, social relations exist whether or not there is a subject. This is because they are abstract. Consider a Trust created under a Will which bequeaths money to a grandchild who has not yet been born. There is no such subject as that grandchild but the 'social relationship' between a person and a possible grandchild is well-defined. 

an abolition staged by way of a relational ontology and ethics.

Neither have any power to 'abolish' anything. It isn't the case that if I want to abolish death, that I can get 'relational ontology' to do it for me. Indeed, even 'Ethics' is powerless to tell the Grim Reaper to fuck the fuck off. Moreover, 'relational ontology' obtains even with respect to imaginary or incompossible things. I can speak of the unicorn which I used to play with as a child and my fear that it has turned into a Trump supporter in its old age.  

Their methodologies for achieving abolition, however, vary hugely.

No. The method is the same- viz. wishful thinking.  On the other hand, I've told relational ontology to use its influence with Ethics to get Ethics to tell the Grim Reaper to fuck the fuck off. Thus, I can be sure I will never die. 

While Butler sees the performativity of subjects

i.e. our ability to make things happen just by saying they should happen. Thus the reason I will live forever is because I told Death to fuck the fuck off.  

and power as an opportunity for differential assembly,

we can disassemble death and turn it into a nice unicorn just by saying this should happen.  

Marxists are primarily concerned with the working class as a revolutionary vanguard that withdraws its labor from production.

No. They know that withdrawing labour from production means labourers starve to death. The Capitalists decide not to invest their money. They go on a nice cruise instead. 

The industrial proletariat could be a 'revolutionary vanguard' if it armed itself and travelled by train up and down the country machine gunning kulaks and confiscating their harvests and live-stock. Sadly, this did mean there would be famines and gulags and long queues to purchase a rotten turnip.  

Judith Butler and Marxism explores the possibility of a Butlerian Marxism,

based on magical thinking. Did you know that by abolishing death, workers would not starve if they withdrew their labour? Also, we could disassemble death and create nice flying unicorns for ourselves. What's more, I could simultaneously be both Beyonce and a cute baby Panda. Everybody would like me and give me pressies if such were the case.  

understood as abolitionist performativity,

e.g. saying 'Death, I abolish you! Fuck the fuck off!'  

differential vulnerability,

I am differentially vulnerable to rejection by peeps who don't think I am Beyonce while also being a cute baby Panda. This is the fault of neo-liberalism. Fuck you neo-liberalism! Fuck you very much! 

and generalized practices of care.

rather than individualized practices like wiping the bums of drunken hobos. Got to say, I'd rather go in for 'generalized practices' e.g. demanding that Neo-liberalism wipes everybody's bum.  

The essays in this volume attempt to actualize the antagonistic persistence of social particulars,

like dudes who don't believe me when I say I'm Beyonce. Great precarity is caused to me by pretty girls who don't stroke and cuddle me because they reject the notion that I am a cute baby Panda.  

pursuing the abolition of the domination and violence that pervade society with increasing brutality.

Butler is being anally probed with increasing brutality by neo-liberal unicorns. Fuck you neo-liberal unicorns! Fuck you very much! 

The three sections of this volume are structured according to three pivotal political concepts in Butler’s corpus: performativity,

I'm Beyonce because I shake my booty and say 'look at me! I'm Queen Bey!'  

vulnerability,

I am experiencing great precarity because girls don't think I'm a baby panda.  

and care.

Neo-liberalism must wipe my arse.  

Each essay contributes to a possible mutual development of Butler’s and Marxism’s concern with assembly, interdependence, and refusal, forming a revolutionary politics of care.

Marxism is still the governing ideology of China and Vietnam. It was once espoused by half the world. Butler's 'revolutionary politics of care' has had zero impact. At the margin, it has made a female POTUS less rather than more likely.  

This is the first book to fully study the contentious link between the vastly influential projects of Judith Butler and Marxism.

Marxism was and is influential. Butler isn't. Why not admit it? The fact is, this availability cascade is being defunded. It attracts only imbeciles. Meanwhile, the Chinese are eating our lunch because their young women go in for STEM subjects. They don't waste their time on magical thinking and posing as revolutionaries.  

Attrishu Bordoloi on why Trump is great

Attrishu Bordoloi is an economic policy analyst in the Economics and Statistics Unit at the Centre for Effective Governance of Indian States in Tamil Nadu, India. He is an alumnus of the Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge. Remarkably, this bien pensant young man appears to endorse Trump's protectionist policies. 

He writes in Aeon-

In just three decades, the world has witnessed a radical reduction in global poverty.

Because poor countries abandoned dirigiste Socialist policies and embraced the market. Higher female participation led to demographic transition. Malthusian poverty fell as girls moved out of involuted agriculture into factory dormitories.

Data from the World Bank in 2024 show the number of people living in extreme poverty has shrunk from nearly 2 billion in 1990 – 38 per cent of humanity – to around 8 per cent today, leaving 692 million people still struggling.

It could rise if there is a trade war or as shooting wars spread. 

In 2023 alone, nearly $224 billion in aid flowed primarily from Western nations – eg, the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany – channelling resources either directly or through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other institutions to fight poverty.

The fall in poverty had nothing to do with Aid.  

These organisations and their major donors celebrate each incremental movement in poverty reduction, heralding their efforts as pivotal steps in taking humanity closer to the Sustainable Development Goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030.

Nobody cares about that stuff though some bureaucrats get paid to pretend to care.

Yet, as the World Bank and the IMF cheer their accomplishments,

The World Bank did help China to embrace the market back in the Eighties. But it lost salience because NGOs would keep targeting it if it financed hydroelectric or other infrastructure projects which, it was alleged, harmed the environment and displaced indigenous people. The IMF has never been concerned with poverty. 

they are relying on fundamentally flawed metrics for measuring poverty.

It is easy enough to construct better metrics by focusing on things like longevity, years of school education, access to modern medicine etc.  

This is why these powerful institutions are often caught off-guard when those technically above the poverty line remain deprived of basic necessities or when minor shocks push millions back into extreme poverty.

They aren't powerful institutions. There is nothing they can do about civil wars- which have a devastating effect on living standards- or, it now appears, trade wars of the type Trump is launching.  

In a nutshell, we are still failing millions who have been ‘saved’ by these supposedly historic reductions in poverty.

In a nutshell, development economists are and always have been useless. They created poverty. They saved nobody from it.  

The problem is that much of the success of the anti-poverty programmes depends on the chosen threshold for the international poverty line itself.

No. It is irrelevant. What matters, in India, is the State Governments identifying of the poverty line and the cash and other benefits it provides to the very poor.  

According to the United Nations, extreme poverty is characterised by ‘severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information’. With respect to this clear-cut definition, the World Bank’s chosen benchmark of $2.15 per day is significantly low.

They raised it from $1.90 in 2017. However they are still using the 2017 purchasing power parity deflator. However, nobody cares about this save one or two bureaucrats and some utterly useless development economists. 

The US Department of Agriculture states that the daily cost to at least meet the adequate calorie intake requirement in terms of fruits and vegetables ranges from $2.10 to $2.60.

 This is the figure for Americans. It is likely to be an underestimate. 

Obviously, if a person’s entire income is spent on food, they will lack clothing, shelter, education and other basic human needs. Once we consider the reality of inflation that affects most economies, the problem grows more acute.

It is a political problem. Nobody cares what figures some bureaucrats come up with. If votes can be gained through transfers, transfers are likely to increase. 

We have to revisit the important question: what should be the threshold for the international poverty line?

No we don't. The Government of Tamil Nadu has to look at local prices and incomes. What the World Bank or the US Dept. of Agriculture says is wholly irrelevant.  

Despite the claims of the World Bank, a person earning just above $2.15 per day is poor.

The World Bank does not deny this.  

They experience the same level of deprivation as those the Bank classifies as poor. The inadequacy of this measure becomes clearer when considering inflation – as the ‘real’ value of $2.15 is below the original ‘dollar-a-day’ line when calculated in constant (1985) dollars. So, the current poverty line not only underestimates poverty but also exacerbates the issues associated with the already inadequate original threshold.

But nobody cares. The only question is whether there is political support for higher transfers.  

For policymakers and governments, ‘ending poverty’ has become synonymous with rising above this arbitrary $2.15 extreme poverty line, contributing to a false picture.

Not in India or the UK or the US or anywhere else. What matters is whether there is political support and 'fiscal headroom' for higher transfers. If there is a trade war, both will diminish. Poverty will rise.  

This needs to be carefully rethought as a 10-cent increase from $2.15 raises the global poverty headcount, on average, by almost 70 million people!

But nobody cares. Measuring poverty is like measuring your dick. Whether you do it or not makes no difference to its size.  

Without question, reduction in global poverty has been positive,

during a period of relatively freer trade. As a Trade War looms, poverty is likely to rise. But wars have an even more devastating effect on living standards. 

but moving people marginally above a low poverty line, one not high enough to fulfil their basic human needs, is less impressive. Playing this statistical game in the global fight against poverty risks being something of a sleight of hand.

Which is why nobody gives a fart about it. In the current situation where both shooting and trade wars are more likely, gassing on about how to measure poverty is like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.  

That is not progress – it’s an accounting trick that conceals the nature and prevalence of extreme poverty, in its truest sense, and its scale.

It is not even a trick because nobody gives a fart.  

A series of methodological fallacies also add to the underestimation of poverty. For instance, the economists Sanjay Reddy and Rahul Lahoti in 2015 highlighted the need for clear decisions on the list of food and non-food items included in poverty calculations.

But neither was involved in actually doing such calculations. The fact is, the quality of the data may necessitate ad hoc assumptions. 

Without this clarification, poverty lines can misrepresent actual deprivation, as the essential goods used to measure poverty may not accurately reflect the needs of poor people.

Sadly, when economic growth falters, transfers are likely to fall. We must cut our coat according to our cloth. Poverty is created by poor people having babies who are likely to be poor. The other factor is general purpose and total factor productivity. Raising that impacts poverty. Measuring poverty does not.  

In Poverty as Ideology (2018), the economist Andrew Martin Fischer emphasised that variations in what is considered a staple necessity in one country, yet rarely consumed in another, require greater attention. Ignoring these differences risks creating a one-size-fits-all poverty line, which doesn’t account for the reality of cultural and economic life across nations, thus making global poverty measures less reliable.

Nobody gives a shit about the global poverty-line. All that matters is the one used at the State level provided there is fiscal headroom for transfers.  

In the same vein, the economist Andy Sumner points out that, to measure poverty, we need greater clarity on which national prices to use and how to capture price changes over time. Either a general price index for average consumption or a food price-inflation index, which better reflects price rises for items consumed by the poor. Present inflation metrics likely fail to reflect the real cost increases experienced by the poor.

Moreover, the poor don't care how poverty is measured. They just want to be given a bit of money so they can buy nice things.  

In addition to these technical flaws, there are deeper issues with the World Bank’s data on poverty. The Bank’s poverty estimates rely on critical information from small states and low-income countries that severely lack regular data collection.

Why not stop publishing these estimates? Nobody gives a fart about them.  

Countries in fragile or conflict-ridden situations are not included in the Bank’s data at all. The World Bank’s most recent estimates are based on consumption data from just two-thirds of countries, and the figures from 29 nations, including Iraq, South Africa and Japan, are more than a decade old.

Because nobody gives a fart about the exercise. If the thing had any importance, better data would be forthcoming.  

The quality of household data collected from many other developing nations is often poor, due to a lack of trained personnel and social norms that complicate accurate reporting and collection. Consequently, cross-country comparisons may be flawed, as the timing and quality of these surveys can vary drastically between nations. How are we supposed to have confidence in poverty estimates based on such a foundation?

Confidence doesn't matter if we don't care a tinker's fart about the thing. 

Egypt provides an example of how inaccurate and outdated data distort measures of poverty, leading to misguided policies and ineffective outcomes. A striking example is that, despite technically being above the poverty line, millions of Egyptians in the early 21st century continued to face rising living costs, pushing them into deeper economic hardship.

Everyone faces rising living costs. Economic hardship is increasing right now because of Trump's tariffs. The 401k of the average American has just taken a big hit.  

The disconnect between metrics from leading global organisations and the actual experiences of Egyptians contributed to the dissatisfaction and grievances that led to the Arab Spring – a series of uprisings across the Arab world in the early 2010s.

The Army is back in power in Egypt. Let us see whether the new regime in Syria is able to keep the peace.  

In India, despite its rapid poverty reduction, many citizens continue to lose a battle against malnutrition, inadequate healthcare, housing and education.

more particularly if they live in Bihar, not Tamil Nadu.  

Food subsidies and cash transfers, targeted using the $2.15 poverty threshold, exclude millions of Indians who remain deprived of basic necessities.

India uses a ppp deflator such that the threshold is about 30 Rs per day. That's about 35 cents. 

This exclusion has contributed to very high levels of hunger, as reflected in India’s 2024 Global Hunger Index score of 27.3. India also holds the highest rate of child wasting in the world – 18.7 per cent – showing common, severe undernutrition.

There is huge disparity even within the same district- from 5 percent to 70 percent.  

The government’s own data show that more than 50 per cent of children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition, contradicting the narrative of rapid poverty reduction.

It confirms the hypothesis that those who have stopped being very poor have also stopped having lots of kids.  

Worryingly, this issue extends beyond India; globally, the number of undernourished people has surged from 572 million in 2017 to approximately 735 million today.

If poor people have lots of babies while the less poor have just one or two babies, then the proportion of poor babies rises.  

The truth is that large populations live just above the $2.15 line.

Or the 35 cent line. 

International organisations and donors tend to overlook these vulnerable groups, who lack access to basic human needs but escape the World Bank classification of ‘poor’.

But such organizations and donors can perpetuate dependency.  

In Bangladesh, for example, while the country has made significant strides in reducing poverty, recurrent flooding and climate shocks have pushed millions back into poverty. Since many of these individuals are not captured by present orthodox metrics, disaster relief and recovery programmes receive insufficient funding.

Funding will disappear altogether if the Globe goes into recession.  

It is urgent that we revise the global poverty threshold to a more realistic figure.

It will make no difference whatsoever.  

Without this reform, we are unable to see a clear picture of actual poverty levels.

We get a clear enough picture by looking at Youtube videos of very poor people in shithole countries. 

By setting the global poverty line at $7 per day – closer to the World Bank’s upper-middle-income threshold, and one that more accurately reflects the cost of meeting basic human needs – we can launch a narrative of real poverty reduction.

You can tell fairy stories. But who will listen to them?  

Under this revised measure, global poverty would have dropped from 69.5 per cent of the world’s population in 1990 to 46.3 per cent by 2022.

It would have halved from 99 percent in 1875 to what it is now in 2025. 

Though not nearly at the world-historic levels put forth using the present orthodoxy, these reductions still represent significant progress, also revealing that nearly half of humanity remains trapped in extreme poverty.

In 1950 there were 2.5 billion people. Now there are 8.5 billion. It wasn't the rich who had lots and lots of kids. It was the very poor. That's why child poverty tends to rise. 

This stark reality underscores the need for a fundamental reassessment of current anti-poverty policies and a move toward more strategies based on real-world information.

That reassessment was done more than 50 years ago. The emphasis was on family planning and raising productivity and female participation. Once China jumped on the bandwagon started by the Taiwanese, South Koreans, Malaysians, Singaporeans etc, hundreds of millions were lifted out of poverty. Once Manmohan Singh- who studied trade, not development at Cambridge- became Finance Minister, India too could begin to rise. Development economists were ignored or told to fuck off. A few found refuge on Leftist campuses while those with solid qualitative skills could be employed by the State to calculate the likely cost of different welfare programs. The problem here is that such programs are subject to rationing when money becomes tight. 

Today, even under the misguided parameter of $2.15 per day, 1.1 billion people across 110 countries still remain multidimensionally poor. This number is significantly high, as almost four of 10 multidimensionally poor individuals (39 per cent) are not captured by monetary poverty. Certainly, such low levels of poverty reduction, even after decades of poverty alleviation policies, are simply not remotely as successful as billed.

Because poverty alleviation is lipstick on a pig. Either general purpose and total factor productivity goes up or the country goes off a fiscal cliff and there is entitlement collapse. If Trump crashes the global economy, nobody is going to be talking about UN sustainability goals. Indeed, the UN may itself be scrapped.  

A key factor for the underperformance lies in the World Bank’s principles shaping anti-poverty policies, particularly the neoliberal emphasis on free-market solutions.

McNamara & Edwin Lim of the World Bank helped China to rise in the Eighties. When Lim came to India and met Manmohan, Montek, Ajith Singh etc, he thought he had died and gone to heaven. It seemed obvious that India could do even better than China in embracing laissez faire. Sadly, he discovered that, in India, the useless 'andolanjivi' activist, or the fool with a Cambridge sheepskin in Development Studies, considered it a highly virtuous and meritorious thing to prevent Development.  

Free markets can be highly efficient in resource allocation, but they have undoubtedly often contributed to widening economic inequalities, pushing vulnerable populations deeper into poverty.

Did you know that if you learn a useful skill and start earning good money, then you are causing 'economic inequality' and pushing vulnerable people deeper into poverty? This is because all money is money stolen from the poor. If you get paid more it is not because you are more productive. It is because you secretly enter the hovels of the poor and steal all their money.  

Let’s take the case for free trade. A well-accepted proposition in modern economics by David Ricardo is that free trade will be beneficial for all, as countries specialise in what they do best.

No. They should specialise in activities where they have the lower opportunity cost. This is 'comparative' not 'absolute' advantage.  

Perhaps, the inevitable creation of ‘losers’ as part of the same process is rarely highlighted.

Because people don't believe that Bill Gates got rich by stealing money from starving people in the Third World.  

With the opening up of trade barriers, certain industries face stiff competition from their foreign counterparts, leading to the contraction of less efficient domestic firms and the reallocation of their resources into another industry. However, capital as well as labour tend to be sticky and don’t move easily.

When a company goes bankrupt, it ceases trading. Its employees don't get paid however sticky they may be. Perhaps what the author is thinking of is 'downward stickiness of money wages'.  

When faced with increased competition, despite taking a hit to their profits, the firms stay put and continue their production line.

No. They go bankrupt. 

This may partly be because of the transaction costs of shifting to a new product: such as the need to retrain workers, buying new machines, etc.

Going bankrupt means having less revenue than expense. Your checks bounce. Your employees and suppliers don't get paid. Thus you can't make anything. Your creditors appoint a receiver who sells your machinery for scrap.  

So, we know in fact that there is no improvement in efficiency through trade,

In India, people can see that the car industry is much more efficient and produces much better cars than it did back in the Eighties.  

rather everyone associated with the industry starts to lose their earnings.

This is Trump's argument. It isn't true that the Taiwanese work harder and thus make a particular type of computer chip better and more cheaply. What is actually happening is Taiwanese dudes surreptitiously enter the trailers of honest American folk. They anally probe them and steal all their money. True, the Taiwanese now have factories in the US. But they have to bring in Taiwanese people to work in them. Americans are too lazy.  

In areas with lax labour laws, workers are more vulnerable to layoffs.

Whereas, where labour laws are draconian, the percentage of workers in the organized sector is much smaller- e.g. 17 percent in India.

Displaced workers, now without a stable income and forced to dip into their savings, often need to relocate in search of new employment opportunities. The resulting job and population losses reduce consumer spending, which in turn causes a decline in demand for goods and services. As demand drops, other businesses in the area suffer, causing a ripple effect. The reduced spending leads to a shrinking tax base, making it harder for local governments to fund schools, public lighting and other essential services. As the locality becomes less attractive, it struggles to draw new businesses.

If this is the case, then Trump is a genius who will Make America Great Again. The 'Rust Belt' will boom as 'in-shoring' of production occurs. Other countries should follow Trump's example and go in for 'autarky'- i.e. self-sufficiency. The result won't be another Great Depression. On the contrary, Trumpism will put an end to poverty and inequality and evil foreigners anally probing Trailer Trash and stealing all their money.  

India saw such economic downturns

No it saw an economic upturn 

following the liberalisation of its economy

caused by a financial crisis which led to India's gold reserves being shipped to London 

– marked by reduced government restrictions on trade and industry. A 20 per cent decline in poverty, from 35 per cent in 1991 to 15 per cent in 2012, followed.

This shows that freer trade reduces poverty. Tamil Nadu, in particular, has greatly benefitted. It exports about 10 billion dollars worth of electronic goods.  

Until 2012, cheaper imports supported domestic firms and boosted Indian exports; however, the advantages of trade liberalisation then led to a slowdown in poverty reduction.

No. What happened was increasing divergence between exporting states like Tamil Nadu and involuted agricultural states like Bihar. Currently, T.N has over five times the per capita income of Bihar. In 1990, it was less than two. It must be said TN had demographic transition at an earlier period- i.e. there was divergence even before liberalization.  

The manufacturing districts experienced significant tariff cuts, resulting in heightened foreign competition and job losses, which threw people into poverty.

No. Crazy Trade Unionists had already destroyed manufacturing in places like Calcutta and Bombay. More and more manufacturing was done in small scale units. Liberalization did harm some older conglomerates whose owners took little interest in running their businesses. But manufacturing districts, speaking generally, saw a dramatic rise in wages and material standards of living. Those States- e.g. Haryana- which took a tough line with Trade Unions took off economically. Incidentally, Chief Minister Stalin can be pretty tough when he wants to be. A case in point is the recent Samsung strike.  

In contrast, districts focused on cereal production were largely unaffected by tariff changes and hence saw no significant change in rates of poverty reduction.

Cereals are protected and subsidized in some parts of India. Poverty did not fall there. Why? The benefit of free trade was only on the consumption, not the production, side. Sadly, even Modi could not push through agricultural reform.  

So contrary to a neoliberal orthodoxy, the anticipated benefits of free trade did not unfold as expected.

This silly man has just proved the opposite. He says districts where free trade led to more competition and efficiency on the production side saw a big reduction in poverty as well as dramatic increases in income. Those which remained protected and agricultural, did not see any poverty reduction. They fell behind. Look at Haryana which was once laggard compared to Punjab. It has now surpassed its neighbour by a wide margin.  

Further evidence, not just pertaining to the case of India, indicates that neoliberal policies have frequently slowed poverty reduction efforts.

What the author means is that countries which used to borrow a lot suffered when they could no longer borrow. This isn't 'neoliberalism'. It is just what happens to spendthrifts who borrow money which they can't repay.  

During the African Structural Adjustment Programs of the 1980s and ’90s, many African economies faced severe balance-of-payments deficits, meaning they were spending more on imports, debt repayments and capital outflows than they were earning through exports, foreign investment and remittances.

They had thought that they could borrow more and more without ever having to pay the money back. Then commodity prices fell and the market decided they could not service their debt. But this also happened to Communist countries which had borrowed a lot.  

The Africans were compelled to seek loans from the IMF and the World Bank. The Bank granted the loans but with several conditions, namely, trade liberalisation with minimal government intervention, privatisation of state-owned enterprises, etc. The adoption of these policies led to a decline in Africa’s per-capita gross domestic product by an annual average of 1.6 per cent from 1981 to 1994.

No. Low commodity prices- relative to the Seventies- led to a fall in the GDP of commodity exporters. There were other problems- e.g. AIDS, Civil Wars, etc.  

The promise of neoliberal economic methods is that an overall increase in economic output, or an ‘expansion of the pie’ will benefit everyone, but the opposite happened in African economies.

Actually, trade theorists like Bhagwati, Prebisch etc. had been talking about 'immiserizing growth' from the late Fifties onward. It is obvious that if demand is inelastic, then if supply rises, total revenue falls. In other words, an adverse movement in the terms of trade reduces the money value of exports. What is the solution? Diversification into higher value adding activities. But that is easier said than done. 

Even in cases where total output expands,

but the terms of trade fall more than proportionality 

there are several challenges.

There is only one challenge- having less money.  

As the gross national product rises, there’s supposed to be more wealth to be shared, and in principle even those displaced by trade could benefit. But that requires redistributive taxation, which depends on political will and efficacy.

High taxes have a disincentive effect on supply. Killing the golden goose is a bad idea. The worry is that India will fail to take off because the productive sector has to pay more and more doles to the unproductive. The country could go off a fiscal cliff. There may be entitlement collapse.  

Over time, the higher output and wages may naturally boost demand, creating new jobs that absorb displaced workers. However, the flaw of this neoliberal theory lies in the timing: the economic benefits and job creation promised to offset job losses can take years to materialise, a time lag that those who have lost their livelihoods cannot afford.

The flaw was to think you can borrow more and more without ever paying that money back. Also, it turned out, rich nations were being hypocritical when they talked about handing out lots of money by way of International Aid.  

The Trade Adjustment Assistance in the US and other programmes provide some support to workers in these situations, but they are insufficient, and such initiatives are largely entirely absent in most developing countries.

Why? Because the money for such things is not forthcoming. I suppose other affluent countries will now follow Trump's example and take an axe to Aid funding. Britain has just cut aid from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent of GDP.  

Economists have begun to see the smoke and mirrors involved in claims of poverty reduction.

No. Economists are sensible enough. They know that places which are raising exports- e.g. Tamil Nadu- are cutting poverty while those which remain sunk in agricultural involution- e.g. Bihar- are increasing it.  

The historic counterexample bedevilling neoliberal poverty reduction claims is the case of China.

It was poor when private enterprise was banned. It rose very rapidly when it embraced the market. However, specific programs- e.g. Chairman's Xi initiative to end absolute poverty in remote parts of the country- have been very well-thought out and implemented. We can compare Xi to LBJ- whose 'Great Society' program helped millions of poorer Americans in rural shitholes.  

India, Nigeria and Bangladesh all embraced neoliberal policies and have experienced significant poverty reduction. However, they all reduced poverty more slowly than China, which adopted non-neoliberal methods.

No. China was much more neoliberal than India. Ease of doing business was very high. The compliance burden was very low. Indians started setting up factories in China in the Nineties. They were astonished that they would be greeted at the airport by local functionaries and taken to a brand new industrial unit. The electricity and water connection was guaranteed to be done within a week. The officials had brought all the paper work. You just signed the forms and you were good to go. Within one month, production could start. Infrastructure had already been built and was being upgraded all the time. The workforce was docile and diligent. There was no problem with Trade Unions or corrupt officials demanding bribes. China was more Capitalist than America. It wasn't Marxist, it was 'Georgist'- i.e. the local authority made its money on land. Moreover the 'houkou' internal passport system meant that immigrants from the countryside got lower entitlements. They weren't allowed to set up shanty towns and there was no 'vote bank politics'. Edwin Lim says that China embraced Capitalism because the leading Party ideologues quoted Marx as saying 'to each according to his contribution'. China broke the 'iron rice bowl' and never looked back. Currently, local government cuts the wages of employees. Such a thing would be unthinkable in India. Indeed, the Chinese market is more 'flex-price' than any other because 'downward stickiness of money wages' does not exist. 

Some people claim China to be a variant of neoliberalism, while others see it more as an alternative to neoliberalism. In my view, even though China embraced market-oriented reforms in the 1970s,

In 1978. But there was a lot of scepticism as to follow through. It wasn't till the crushing of the Tiananmen protests that there was confidence that China would stick to the laissez faire path.  

its approach is not neoliberal due to its evident state control, protectionism and limited political liberalisation.

Like South Korea or Taiwan in the Sixties and Seventies, we would describe it as authoritarian Capitalism.  

According to the data from the World Bank itself, in the past 40 years, China alone has lifted close to 800 million people out of extreme poverty.

They worked hard and lifted themselves.  

Nothing like that has occurred before in history. China’s share of global poverty in 1990 constituted 41 per cent, as compared with 2020 when its share was less than 1 per cent. This historic feat in poverty reduction was possible only due to the rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector.

Which was only due to free trade. China did have quite a large, but inefficient, Public sector manufacturing base. There was some reform of it but the PSUs still enjoy monopoly powers in many fields. The difference between China and India is that a corrupt official may be shot. In India it will take many years to prosecute the fellow.  

Growth in manufacturing provided jobs to millions of workers with low to moderate skills in the early stages of growth. At every level, the state played an integral role in the industrial expansion, overriding regulations for favoured companies, offering land below the market prices and loans at subsidised rates, sometimes in return for an equity stake.

In other words, local authorities acted in a Capitalist manner to maximise revenue from their land banks.  

China even blocked competition from outside firms, as evidenced by its average industrial tariff rate of 40-55 per cent during the past decades.

So did India. The difference was that China pursued Capitalist policies while India, for political reasons, preferred to buy votes from poor people.  

China also implemented social safety nets, for example expanded health coverage, social insurance schemes and targeted poverty-alleviation programmes.

So did India. But China's 'collective insurance schemes' appear sustainable. India's may not be.  

None of these are neoliberal policies, but they led to an increase in China’s annual per-capita income, from $76 in 1961 to around $12,500 in 2023.

What increased China's per-capita income was raising exports from 40 billion dollars in 1980 (one percent of global trade) to 2.6 trillion in 2020 which is at least 15 percent.  

On the other hand, India – a neoliberal economy with a similar demographic structure to China (in terms of population size and rural-urban divide)

No. India's population has overtaken China's. The latter has an 'ageing' population. The fear is that India is not taking advantage of its 'demographic dividend'. Moreover, there is a lot of small scale industry in China's rural hinterland whereas this is absent in many parts of India. It would be truer to say some parts of India are like China was ten or fifteen years back. But many parts are nothing like any current part of China. 

– offers an instructive point of comparison and contrast. In 1961, India had an annual per-capita income of $86, and today has one of the highest number of people living in extreme poverty.

China had a draconian one child policy. Parts of India still have high fertility. They are falling even further behind states like Tamil Nadu 

Some economies that leaned more towards neoliberal policies, Japan for example, have developed extensive social welfare programmes. During the 1990s, Japan implemented labour market reforms that promoted greater flexibility in hiring by allowing more part-time, temporary and contract workers. Although this policy boosted productivity and reduced cost for firms, it also led to increased job insecurity and a growing population of workers without stable employment. To mitigate these negative outcomes, the government expanded its unemployment insurance and social welfare programmes, ensuring that displaced workers had access to financial support during periods of unemployment.

In other words, Japan became more similar to other OECD countries. This was also happening in South Korea and Taiwan. They all first grew their economies and only then did they go in for 'welfare'. India put the cart before the horse.  

Japan thus reduced the social costs of market-driven reforms. During the 1970s and ’80s, Korea and Taiwan also adopted social welfare programmes, recognising the need for government involvement in social protection.

No. They recognized that they could reduce 'Knightian Uncertainty' through sustainable 'risk pooling'. Insurance is a Capitalist concept. It has nothing to do with 'to each according to her needs'. You pay into a fund and, if misfortune strikes, you receive money from it.  

These changes helped in successful poverty reduction.

No. Rising general purpose and total factor productivity (e.g. efficient law courts) led to poverty reduction because poor women got jobs in factories. They didn't remain in the villages having babies like crazy.  

So recent history suggests a balance between market forces and government intervention remains essential.

No. Recent history shows that 'Government intervention' has to end when the money runs out. To get more money general purpose and total factor productivity has to rise.  

The need for such a balance became even more evident after the 2008 financial crisis – a byproduct of financial deregulation, particularly of derivatives, in the US.

It was a by-product of a stupid, populist, scheme to get poor Americans to buy 'sub-prime' property. What was hilarious was that the Germans lost a lot of money on this. The result was that Europe stagnated- growing at about 1 percent for the last 18 years- while the Indo-Pacific grew at six or seven times that. The result was that the US pivoted to the Indo-Pacific and now takes much less interest in NATO.  

The crisis triggered the collapse of Iceland’s three largest banks, whose liabilities exceeded the country’s annual economic output.

Iceland has a population of 400,000. It is an outlier. 

As credit availability dwindled, global demand plummeted, affecting businesses worldwide and pushing millions into poverty. This crisis made many neoliberal countries reconsider the risks of an unfettered free market, leading to a resurgence of state intervention in social protection, trade and industrial policy.

No. Countries doubled down on free trade and Globalization. The fear was that a return to Protection would turn a recession into a Great Depression.  

A recent example is India’s Production Linked Incentive scheme, introduced in 2020, which offers subsidies to foreign firms manufacturing in India based on their incremental sales relative to a baseline period.

This has nothing to do with the financial crisis which did not have much impact on India. Rather, it was worries about corruption and fiscal headroom which caused the Moody downgrading of Indian gilts.  

The initiative aims to create low-skilled manufacturing jobs, particularly for the poor, by leveraging state support to drive industrial expansion.

In other words, it is bound to fail.  

Although the role of the state in economic management has expanded in response to financial crises,

In India, a financial crisis- viz. India's inability to pay its debts- caused the role of the state in economic management to shrink. Dr. Manmohan may have studied in Cambridge but he wasn't Bengali- i.e. a stupid virtue signalling cunt. 

it remains far from a fundamental shift away from market-driven paradigms.

That fundamental shift involves a Dictator beating and robbing the productive element in Society and then pissing the money away building palaces for himself.  

Many neoliberal countries continue to celebrate incremental progress and emphasise market-driven solutions, concealing the real challenges by overstating, sometimes radically, their successes using World Bank data.

But nobody cares about that sort of propaganda.  

However, any discussion of poverty reduction today must grapple with the undeniable reality of China’s success in global poverty reduction.

By raising productivity rather than giving money to the unproductive.  

China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty through deliberate state-led strategies, an achievement that far surpasses even the most optimistic claims of the free-market model.

But it used free-market methods. North Korea didn't. Its people are as poor as shit.  

If global policymakers

there are no such creatures. Who is the Secretary General of the UN? I don't know and I don't care. The UN is useless.  

are serious about poverty eradication,

as opposed to being serious about abolishing death 

they can no longer afford to ignore this contrast.

What contrast? The fact is, it is still much easier to set up an industry in China than it is in India. That is why India imports a lot from China but exports little. I suppose, sooner or later, India will have to make it easier for China to open factories in India.  

The question is not whether state intervention works,

a sensible intervention works. A stupid intervention fails to work. It doesn't matter whether it is a public or private intervention. What matters is whether the money spent on the thing results in a bigger benefit.  

but why so many continue to resist learning from the most effective example in modern history.

China looked at North Korea. Then it looked at South Korea. It chose to imitate South Korea. India had previously looked to the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union crashed and burned. That's why Manmohan was permitted to scrap the licence permit Raj. Later, Modi got rid of the Planning Commission. Parts of India did grow but other parts remained stuck in agricultural involution and the politics of envy. The big question now is whether India will go down the path of buying votes while perpetuating poverty or whether the country will go off a fiscal cliff. In the latter case, there will be no alternative to laissez faire.

I may mention Rahul Gandhi got his MPhil in Development Studies from Cambridge- which is where this gentleman got his PhD. Both qualifications aren't worth the paper they are printed on. They make stupid virtue signallers stupider and more hysterical in their virtue signalling.  

Sabinae raptae lectora

That Faith fear no foeman

& wax e'er more Roman

Quae tu creasti pectora

Sabinae raptae lectora

Envoi- 

 Feretrius! Prince! Maximal bridge-builder to that Original Sin

Which but originates in a Book, Nothing wrote itself in. 

John Stuart Mill's useless Liberty

From the age of 17, for 35 years, John Stuart Mill, like his father before him, was a small cog in the giant machine that was the East India Company. Intellectually, too, his was a life of wearisome servitude to ideas both boring and obsolete. It is no wonder that he complains at the end of one of his most celebrated works- 'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; 

There were British men who had done worthwhile things in India. But Mill had been stuck in London examining reports they sent back. Equally, in England, worthwhile things were being done- great industries were being erected- but Mill had not done those things. 

and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation to a little more of administrative skill, 

which was what the British Raj did to the clerks who served it

or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, 

as Mill had been dwarfed and deformed by his father

in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished;

Thanks to his wife, Mill did accomplish something. But she would have achieved more in proprio persona. 

 and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.'

Mill's readers knew that his job had been abolished along with the Company he served. Then his wife too died. The machinery of his mind continued to turn in accustomed circles, but it was running down. Was there a ghost in that machine which gibbered against its fate? For his contemporaries, perhaps, but, to us, it is clear that Mill's essay on Liberty isn't actually about Liberty. It is about legitimacy. But securing Liberty may entail repudiating what was previously held to be legitimate authority. Indeed, there is bound to be a certain tension between Legitimacy and Liberty. At the margin, any legitimate demand or requirement may be seen as an infringement of Liberty. The opposite is equally true. 

Mill and his father had served the East India Company- a commercial enterprise which had acquired vast territories and whose legitimacy depended on raising general purpose and total factor productivity there. This alone would make the place defensible and purchase the loyalty of the natives. Any other advantages it offered were irrelevant.

Nevertheless, it was obvious that the EIC afforded residents of India more liberty than they would have on British shores. Holyoake would not have been sent to jail for blasphemy if he had made his famous speech in Calcutta rather than Cheltenham. In India, Judges were loath to interfere with customary practices or to enforce the new Penal Code save where great harm had been done to a third party.

 Mill was aware of the scandal for British Liberalism represented by the toleration and meritocratic methods employed on Ind's coral strand which stood in marked contrast to the obscurantism and intolerance on display in the home island . 

Indeed, an argument for leaving India in the hands of John Company was that direct rule might mean the imposition of an intolerant and alien religion and system of morality. A far bloodier Revolt might result. 

I suppose, Mill wanted nothing more to do with India and was seeking to make a space for himself- or perhaps for the ideas of his wife- in mid-Victorian England. Yet, by writing about 'Liberty' while excluding from the sway of its 'general principle', the one realm of which he had expert knowledge, Mill was bound to fail. After all, he and his father had pursued no Liberal Profession nor gained wealth through free enterprise. They were faceless bureaucrats of a type that might be found in Peking or St. Petersburg whose job it was to record the inflow of tribute from widely scattered tribes whose languages and mores were unknown to them. 

 Bertrand Russell has remarked that though Mill frequently quotes Herbert Spenser, Darwinian theory appears to have left little mark upon him. Yet, as we shall see, Mill does draw upon jungle lore in the course of his essay. Perhaps what Russell meant was that whereas we may be tempted to think of Liberty and Legitimacy as 'co-evolved', like predators and their prey, the truth is, they are impredicative. Legitimacy is a type of Liberty and Liberty has a type of Legitimacy. 

For us, perhaps, a better approach would be to think in terms of 'functional information'- i.e. the information necessary to predict or understand the function of a system, sequence, or process. The law of increasing functional information states that a system will evolve in complexity if many different configurations of the system undergo selection for one or more functions. What is salient here is 'multiple realizability'- i.e. different things may have the same effect. Thus, in Political Systems, we see that Legitimacy can substitute for Liberty and vice versa. Moreover, such evolved complexity is not necessarily Darwinian. However, it is context dependent and statistical. Utilitarianism, of a statistical type, crude though it may have been, faced no great scandal in focusing on selective pressure on multiply realizable functional relations  arising on Social configuration spaces. What it would lack would be a context independent scaffolding or a deontic logic of its own. 

Mill's essay is about

Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.

This is odd. We think of Liberty as a set of immunities possessed by an individual. These immunities are defeasible. To solve a collective action problem, an immunity may be waived, voided or put in abeyance. This may be done by private individuals, voluntary associations, or public authorities. 

Mill, it seems, takes the opposite view.  There is only some minimal or residual Liberty accruing to the individual, though, no doubt, by an enlightened and self-denying ordinance we may forbid Public Reason from encroaching too arbitrarily upon it.

 This is opposite to the common-sense view that people have much more and much better information about their own circumstances.  There can be residuary control rights vested in some public authority which are triggered by exigent circumstances or, over the course of time, where this happens as a matter of convenience. We might say that Public Authority gains salience as a Schelling focal solution to a Coordination Game. But salience is not power. A forum is not a Senate. It may be useful but only if everybody finds it so. 

By contrast, mainstream Liberal/Libertarian thought assumes, for a Hayekian reason, that there can be speedier evolution to more robust and complex functional performance under laissez faire. No doubt, Governments may be better placed to aggregate certain types of information. But it would be coarse grained and 'after the fact'. Moreover, private enterprise could provide actuarial services and support risk pooling mechanisms. Alternatively, if undertaken by the State, an autonomous Corporation could be put in charge and relevant benchmarks could be instituted to monitor its performance.

 For Mill- perhaps because he was not a lawyer- the scope of the law- which is what gives rise to legitimacy- appears to have no limits even though laws and Governments only exist for limited purposes- viz. to solve certain collective action problems relating to existential threats- even though such threats- e.g. invasion or insurrection may seldom materialize. Of course, under exigent circumstances, it would not make sense to cling to immunities which would be lost more completely if they were not temporarily curtailed. But, the very fact that the curtailment will be temporary increases the willingness to accept it. Here 'functional information' must focus on willingness and ability to pay because what can be squeezed out of a population may fall as incentives disappear and productivity plummets. 

A question seldom stated,

it is frequently posed in Courts of Law and in Legislatures. Am I at liberty to walk across your land? Yes, if there is a 'right of way'. Are you at liberty to sit naked in your back-garden? No- if your neighbours can see you and they object to the sight.  

and hardly ever discussed, in general terms, but which profoundly influences the practical controversies of the age by its latent presence, and is likely soon to make itself recognised as the vital question of the future.

The vital question of the future was how to solve collective action problems such that general purpose and total factor productivity could rise. This increased Liberty as a set of Hohfeldian immunities and entitlements. Mill was barking up the wrong tree. The future would belong to those systems which selected for rising 'functionality'. Gassing on about Liberty and Tyranny and the need for perpetual vigilance just in case Gladstone turns into a Vampire or Disraeli turns into a Werewolf contributed to paranoia and dysfunction. 

It is so far from being new, that, in a certain sense, it has divided mankind, almost from the remotest ages;

No. People aint stupid. They get that there are collective action problems and exigent circumstances such that there is less liberty in some places and some spheres than in other places or other spheres of activity. This is an unthought known. Reading a lot of Economics books rots the brain.  

but in the stage of progress into which the more civilised portions of the species have now entered, it presents itself under new conditions, and requires a different and more fundamental treatment.

Mill had been given no liberty by his father. The Utilitarianism in which he had been indoctrinated was stupid and useless because it separated production from distribution. It did not take raising general purpose and total factor productivity as its aim. Thus it wasn't useful at all. 

The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England.

Fuck off! Historical struggles relate to who conquers which patch of land and who gets enslaved by who.  Legitimacy does not matter. Killing people does. 

But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the Government.

Killing the guys doing the governing and taking over their mansions is how you establish the legitimacy of your own authority. Sadly, the previous rulers often preferred to run away or to surrender. In England, James II had run away. At a later point, Kings were happy enough to reign not rule provided Parliament provided them with plenty of cash. Electoral politics had a lot to do with money. As factory workers got paid more, they could pool funds through Trade Unions (once they became legal) and gain increasing political power and influence. 

By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.

Not to mention protection from tyrannical rulers who are also Vampires. Why the fuck was Mill writing about a thing wholly absent from England's green and pleasant land?  

The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled.

No they weren't. If you didn't like the guys running your town, you fucked off elsewhere. Mill was as stupid as Marx. Having had to read a bit of ancient Athenian or Roman history had fucked up their brains. There is a general antagonism to paying taxes. But in countries which have never been ruled by tyrants, there is little need to worry that Tyranny or Vampirism will suddenly arise. Where tyrants do exist, chances are the alternative is anarchy. Still, it might be a good idea to get out while the going is good. 

They consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest,

or religion or popularity or money or superior organizational skills.  

who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might be taken against its oppressive exercise.

Oppression costs money and takes up a lot of time. Why do it if you don't have to? The answer, obviously, is that those who have power face an irresistible temptation to turn into Vampires, Tyrants, Werewolves, Jack the Ripper, etc. Indeed, Mill- as chief examiner at the India Office- often had to reprove Viceroys and Governors for their habit of entering the hovels of coolies and tyrannizing over them in between sucking their blood or draining them of their jizz.  

Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies.

The East India Company- which Mill, like his father, served, was a commercial enterprise. Indeed, most Government is. Depending on how much people are willing to pay in tax, various public services of variable quality are supplied.  

To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down.

Mill thought that Lions went around arresting foxes who might otherwise prey upon chickens.  

But as the king of the vultures

Vultures eat carrion. Was Mill utterly stupid? Yes. His Daddy made him read Economics books. That rotted his brain.  

would be no less bent upon preying on the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws.

Come to think of it, Count Dracula turns into a bat and flits about the place. King Charles is descended from him through Mary of Teck. 

The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.

 Tyranny meant demanding the payment of taxes. Liberty meant killing or chasing away tax-collectors. As an Economist, Mill should have understood this. On the other hand, people might get rid of a King of whose religion they didn't approve. Liberty tended to mean that everybody should worship in the way we think is right while those who worship in a different way should fuck the fuck off. 

It was attempted in two ways.

No. There was only one way. 

First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe,

all immunities are defeasible because everything that pertains to the law is defeasible. But this is also the case with customs or norms or novel combinations or groups of people giving themselves rules or claiming prerogatives. Should Trade Unions, which claimed the right to bargain collectively, have an immunity or should they be considered a combination in restraint of trade? The answer was that they had it if they didn't need it. Legal rights and immunities often have that quality. If you can do a thing with impunity, it does not matter whether what you do is legal and therefore legitimate. 

and which if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable.

It was justifiable if it would prevail and those who rebelled or resisted gained by it. As Sir John Harington put it- "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." However, refusal to obey a law- e.g. one banning Trade Unions- did not necessarily involve treason or rebellion. A lawyer might sagely observe that the statute in question had fallen into desuetude or else that the circumstances under which it had been salutary no longer obtained. 

A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks, by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power.

But there were checks on those checks such that there was always more than one way to kill the cat.  

To the first of these modes of limitation, the ruling power, in most European countries, was compelled, more or less, to submit.

If the Church had countervailing power, Liberty might be greater though Enterprise might be less. The opposite may have been the case for 'Liberties' created by the Crown for the purpose of boosting revenue. Emigration was another factor. The greater the possibility of 'Exit', the less could be squeezed out of the people.  

It was not so with the second;

i.e. Constitutional checks and balances which were either wholly notional or reflected actual power configurations- in which case they were otiose.  

and, to attain this,

you needed a couple of scribes and a bit of parchment

or when already in some degree possessed, to attain it more completely, became everywhere the principal object of the lovers of liberty.

Fuck off! Their principal object was to make love to themselves while talking bollocks.  

And so long as mankind were content to combat one enemy by another, and to be ruled by a master, on condition of being guaranteed more or less efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point.

What they aspired to was wealth and social status- preferably wholly unearned.  

A time, however, came, in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves.

Nobody ever had any such idea. The Governor should have the same interest as the governed- viz. keeping the place safe from invasion or economic collapse. Mill's paranoid theory that Governors are bound to turn into Tyrannical Vampires or Werewolves may have arisen by some, specifically Victorian, 'imposthume of much wealth and peace". The fact is, even the best nightwatchman State can't keep the wealthy safe from nightmares. 

It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure.

This was not the case in France or Germany. In America, there was the spoils system. But, in England, since 1701, Judges held office on condition of good behaviour rather than at the pleasure of the Crown or Parliament.  

In that way alone, it seemed, could they have complete security that the powers of government would never be abused to their disadvantage.

Because your tenants or delegates never fuck you over- right? 

By degrees this new demand for elective and temporary rulers

as opposed to temporary administrations chosen by the Crown with a view to having a scapegoat ready to hand should things turn pear shaped. But, in formal terms, this was still the function of the Cabinet. Mill was already 28 years old when the King lost the power to appoint the Prime Minister.  

became the prominent object of the exertions of the popular party, wherever any such party existed; and superseded, to a considerable extent, the previous efforts to limit the power of rulers.

It was part and parcel of the same thing. In England, the King lost a power which, speaking generally, was retained on the Continent.  

As the struggle proceeded for making the ruling power emanate from the periodical choice of the ruled, some persons began to think that too much importance had been attached to the limitation of the power itself. That (it might seem) was a resource against rulers whose interests were habitually opposed to those of the people. What was now wanted was, that the rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation.

That was always the case. Mill lived in a fantasy world where the English hadn't always wanted to be ruled by an Englishman who loved England. Even the Indians preferred the East India Company to pretend to hold Nizamat from the Grand Moghul. Within a decade of the establishment of direct rule, there were Indians who wanted India to be ruled by Indians. The problem was that, unlike the Settler colonies, India couldn't become self-garrisoning and self- administering because Indians could not agree to form a Federation. Also, they didn't give a fuck about raising productivity. 

The nation did not need to be protected against its own will.

That was not what England decided after experiencing the rule of the Lord Protector.  

There was no fear of its tyrannising over itself.

Yes there is. The problem is 'preference falsification'. As a true blue Brit, I genuinely hate all furriners and immigrants and peeps wot eat Sushi instead of fish and chips. But the last thing I want is to be ruled by people who would actually implement policies based on these chauvinistic views. 

Let the rulers be effectually responsible to it, promptly removable by it, and it could afford to trust them with power of which it could itself dictate the use to be made.

Rulers are people, not vampires or robots. Either we trust them or we don't. It isn't the case that we hire certain robots or vampires, on the basis of their trustworthiness, to rule us because none of our own people have the necessary intelligence or skill.

Their power was but the nation’s own power, concentrated, and in a form convenient for exercise. This mode of thought, or rather perhaps of feeling, was common among the last generation of European liberalism, in the Continental section of which it still apparently predominates. 

It was less apparent where there were National Churches and indigenous dynasties.  On the other hand, on the Continent, there was greater scope for 'catch up', Listian, growth- i.e. collective action problems could be better solved by a 'Sonderweg' or special path.

Those who admit any limit to what a government may do, except in the case of such governments as they think ought not to exist, stand out as brilliant exceptions among the political thinkers of the Continent.

Political thinkers don't stand out. They may stand up but only so as to soil themselves the publicly.  

A similar tone of sentiment might by this time have been prevalent in our own country, if the circumstances which for a time encouraged it, had continued unaltered.

In England, industrialization meant that Reform could ignore Agricultural interests though, no doubt, some paid lip service to 'three acres and a cow' which was silly because even African Americans were being promised 40 acres and a mule. The other big problem was dissatisfaction with the Established Church. Anti-Clericalism could have little purchase when Protestant Churches, however boringly evangelical, were fractally schismatic. 

But, in political and philosophical theories, as well as in persons, success discloses faults and infirmities which failure might have concealed from observation.

But success is only relative to failure. The theory or person who succeeded only did so because some great fault or infirmity was imputed to theories or persons who failed or didn't even bother to show up.  

The notion, that the people have no need to limit their power over themselves, might seem axiomatic,

It is an 'intensional fallacy'. It is obvious that the people don't exercise power or authority. Rather some bunch of dudes may do so in their name.  

when popular government was a thing only dreamed about, or read of as having existed at some distant period of the past. Neither was that notion necessarily disturbed by such temporary aberrations as those of the French Revolution, the worst of which were the work of a usurping few, and which, in any case, belonged, not to the permanent working of popular institutions, but to a sudden and convulsive outbreak against monarchical and aristocratic despotism. In time, however, a democratic republic came to occupy a large portion of the earth’s surface,

the USA? It was based on killing the natives and bringing in slaves.  

and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations; and elective and responsible government became subject to the observations and criticisms which wait upon a great existing fact. It was now perceived that such phrases as “self-government,” and “the power of the people over themselves,” do not express the true state of the case. The “people” who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the “self-government” spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power.

This is fucked in the head. Loyalists were thrown out after the Revolution. Religious or other dissenters of various types were constantly heading West to kill off the indigenous people and create States where they could oppress those they didn't like. In 'the Simpsons', Shelbyville broke away from Springfield so as to indulge in cousin-marriage.  

The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein.

America had the 'spoils system' till 1883. Elections mattered because if your candidate won, he could get you a Government job. In the UK, at least in formal terms, it wasn't till 1870 that Gladstone implemented the Northcote-Trevelyan report- i.e. purchase and patronage ceased to be factors in appointments to the Civil Service. The purchase of commissions in the Army ended three years later.  

This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations “the tyranny of the majority” is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

The majority may sodomize you and drink your blood if it gets power. Why? Having power turns you into a homosexual vampire. Ceaseless vigilance is the precondition for our not being buggered and bled by Count Dracula (aka Sir Keir Starmer) .  

Wherever there is an ascendant class,

e.g. the Irish Ascendancy 

a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class superiority.

Catholicism had disappeared in Ireland because the Ascendancy was Protestant.  

The morality between Spartans and Helots, between planters and negroes, between princes and subjects, between nobles and roturiers, between men and women, has been for the most part the creation of these class interests and feelings: and the sentiments thus generated react in turn upon the moral feelings of the members of the ascendant class, in their relations among themselves.

This is nonsense. There was 'Tardean mimetics'- i.e. imitation of the superior- but, more often than not, this meant imitation of the highly productive, not imitation of swinish parasites. An Aristocracy- like that of Poland- may sink into poverty while upholding its 'Golden Liberties' and supposed superior 'Sarmatian' racial descent- but this is to invite conquest and foreign domination. 

The fact is brutish conquerors soon morphed into cultivated 'Beauclercs'- i.e. they submitted to the Church and their language and mores became polished and refined. Morality is something the middle order imposes on its masters.  

Where, on the other hand, a class, formerly ascendant, has lost its ascendancy, or where its ascendancy is unpopular, the prevailing moral sentiments frequently bear the impress of an impatient dislike of superiority.

Superior people come to dislike displays of superiority when they discover that they themselves are mortal. If there is a God, their condition in the after-life may be very inferior indeed. Even otherwise, a chap who gives himself airs may find nobody comes to his rescue when he receives a thrashing in the street. 

Another grand determining principle of the rules of conduct, both in act and forbearance, which have been enforced by law or opinion, has been the servility of mankind towards the supposed preferences or aversions of their temporal masters or of their gods. This servility, though essentially selfish, is not hypocrisy; it gives rise to perfectly genuine sentiments of abhorrence; it made men burn magicians and heretics.

Nonsense! England burned its last heretic in 1612. The last witch was hanged about a hundred years later. The plain fact is, the English were losing their faith in priestcraft and magic.  Sadly, other types of ignorance and bigotry retained currency even into my own life-time.

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

We have an immunity, under certain circumstances, for killing in self-defence. But we are very seldom in any such danger. It is foolish to invoke so rare an occurrence as the basis of a general principle or categorical imperative. I may mention that we have an immunity for farting in a very loud and smelly manner while using the w.c. Would it be reasonable to say 'the sole end for which mankind is warranted in causing a nuisance to others is for the purpose of defecation'? 

Just as we have an immunity for farting or killing homicidal maniacs, we also have an immunity with respect other people doing things we don't like with our property or when they are employed by us. Every 'vinculum juris' or bond of law involves some sacrifice of liberty of action. If it is for consideration, then it is a contract. The Social Contract may be seen as a contract of adhesion. If you don't like the rules here, fuck off. 

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Thus, if I entered Mills house with the intention of shitting on his carpet, he would not be entitled to chuck me out by main force. He may say 'I would receive harm by having shit on my carpet' but I may feel that he would benefit by it. What clinches the matter is that a court of law would say that Mill gains a benefit by refusing admission to his own house to those he does not like. If he prefers a carpet lacking my invaluable shit, that is a matter for him alone.

Mill's principle is either foolish or anything goes. 

His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

Lunatics must be allowed to wander around the place eating their own shit. They must not be restrained for their own safety.  

He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.

The law already made provision for lunatics or people with diminished capacity. No general principle was needed where a sensible enough 'economia' already obtained. What would change would be instances where individuals were forced to save or forced to make certain sorts of investment decisions or were forced to undergo particular types of education, training or employment because, speaking generally, they would themselves admit that they were better off as a result. 

These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.

Morley had opposed the eight hour day as an infringement of the liberty of the worker. Later he would resign when the UK entered the Great War. Yet, if Conscription had to be accepted, why should limitations on 'sweating labour' not be accepted? Mill and Morley were clearly wrong in their beliefs. Why? They lived in a make-believe world and were vigilant only against an imaginary enemy. 

To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else.

This is easily done. My neighbour does not want to see me wandering around nude in my back-garden. That's a good enough reason to prevent me from doing so.  

The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.

In which case, 'amenability' is a function not of ipseity's self-interest but an alterity's 'concerns'. 

In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.

No. It is a matter of fact. Is this man wholly independent in deciding on matters that concern only himself? If we notice that he is swayed by his father or his wife or his confessor, then we say he is not independent. Thus, in a case involving 'undue influence', a Judge may set aside a Will. 

Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Only in the sense that he is also a vampire or leprechaun. In other words, this is merely a rhetorical flourish or ipse dixit assertion. 

Scientific and technological progress, over the course of Mill's life, made it clear that Victorian England would appear very backward indeed to Englishmen of the next century. Yet Mill says

we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable.

This was, certainly, an argument for granting more power to the new urban, industrial and mercantile, bourgeoisie. The question was whether the gains they had made from the Great Reform Bill could safely be extended to the upper working class and, perhaps, even women. 

Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.

Was Mill saying the East India Company was 'despotic' rather than commercial and pragmatic? No. He was talking nonsense. Barbarians can't have despots because absolute power is curbed by assassination. What can happen is that a War-Lord creates an  administration of an 'incentive-compatible' type with a view to turning it into an Imperial system on an already familiar model. But this was easier said than done precisely because barbarian rule may so destroy the productivity of sedentary populations that Absolutism or Autocracy are deprived of the sinews of war- id est, their own sustenance. In other words, the descendants of the Great Khan either return to banditry or adopt the customs of settled people- which is what the Moghuls did in India.   

Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.

Mill was not improved by such discussion. Some of his contemporaries made inventions or discoveries of a mathematical or scientific kind. Bertrand Russell makes much of the fact that his famous grandfather was the pupil of Edmund Cartwright whose inventions were, perhaps unfairly, considered of great value in the late eighteenth century. 

Liberty as a set of Hohfeldian immunities is worth investigating with a view to improving functional efficiency and thus more robust and rapid evolution of the underlying configuration space. I suppose Mill's mathematical thinking was confined to notions of 'tangency' rather than transversality. But this could also be said of the type of Rational Choice theory I was supposed to study at Uni. 

Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one.

Mill was impartial in his ignorance. The fact is, both Akbar and Charlemagne conciliated important sections of society with the result that economic activity increased.  

But as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves),

but not the nation with which Mill and his father had been concerned with- viz. India 

compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others.

By the time this was written there were Indian and 'Anglo-Indian' intellectuals pointing to ways to improve the efficiency of the Raj. This was because if productivity there didn't rise, the place would become too poor to defend or to save from a Malthusian disaster. 

 William Digby, the journalist who had written most about Indian famines, became the secretary of the National Liberal Club about 10 years after Mill died at the age of 66. I suppose, there is some truth to the notion that the last disciples of Mill & Morley were to be found in Bengal not Britain. This is because Bengalis think 'productivity' is a dirty word. The only thing which matters is distribution- or rather scolding the rich for not redistributing their wealth to the very very poor. 

Mill does not appear to have made money playing the markets. He did not understand that an abstract right is an option. If it is traded, it has a money value and therefore an expression as 'transferable utility'. This is independent of utility but reduces risk and uncertainty and thus may contribute to more economic activity. To be clear, things which raise general purpose or total factor productivity may yield no hedonic value in themselves. Yet they permit the law of increasing functional information to operate. 

It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility.

In which case, it would also be proper to state that this is not an essay on Liberty. It is an essay on what constitutes legitimate deprivation of liberty.  This is like writing an essay on Beauty and speaking only of when it is right and proper to scratch out the eyes of the Mona Lisa. 

I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions;

in which case, focus on why it is useful to gas on about such questions. Mill may reply 'It is useful to do so because Rulers may turn into Count Dracula. We must maintain an unsleeping vigilance to ensure Gladstone doesn't go around biting people on the neck.'  

but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being.

Men are interested in progress. How is it achieved? The answer is by raising general purpose and total factor productivity. Did Mill contribute anything to that? No. He was useless.  

Those interests, I contend, authorise the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people.

e.g. Gladstone spontaneously deciding to bite the necks of virgins. This might cause him to become Count Dracula.  

If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation.

No. There is either a prima facie crime or a tort. If neither arises there may be cause for approbation- if the result of that harm being done had a salutary effect (e.g. lazy people were sacked with the result that they started working hard) then approbation may be called for.  

There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as to give evidence in a court of justice;

that is a justiciable matter. There is a strong right not to self-incriminate and various types of privilege may apply. Moreover, the right to cross examine a witness may nullify the probative value of testimony.  

to bear his fair share in the common defence,

again this is a fraught question.  

or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a low creature’s life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man’s duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing.

Here, something like the tort of 'culpa levis in abstracto' applies. Again this is a justiciable matter. 

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.

He may have immunities or privileges of various sorts. This is a justiciable matter.  

The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others is the rule; to make him answerable for not preventing evil is, comparatively speaking, the exception.

Unless the reverse is the case. Don't trust Mill. Consult a lawyer. You may, with complete impunity, close down your factory and thus cause great suffering to ten thousand workers. But you may also be liable for a large sum in damages if a tile fell off your factor roof and injured a passer-by. 

Yet there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception. In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amenable to those whose interests are concerned, and, if need be, to society as their protector. There are often good reasons for not holding him to the responsibility; but these reasons must arise from the special expediencies of the case: either because it is a kind of case in which he is on the whole likely to act better, when left to his own discretion, than when controlled in any way in which society have it in their power to control him; or because the attempt to exercise control would produce other evils, greater than those which it would prevent.

If special expediencies have salience, no general principle does. This is a matter of custom and precedent. The law may be changed such that 'innocent' torts cease to be so while previously legal actions- e.g. closing down a loss making factory- attract substantial penalties.  

When such reasons as these preclude the enforcement of responsibility, the conscience of the agent himself should step into the vacant judgment seat, and protect those interests of others which have no external protection; judging himself all the more rigidly, because the case does not admit of his being made accountable to the judgment of his fellow creatures.

In other words, Utilitarianism has admitted defeat and gone home. Synderesis- i.e. the still small voice of conscience- possesses the field.