Subversión y moraleja

As you enter a bookshop in the UK, the first thing the new visitor is likely to notice is the distinction between fiction and non-fiction on the shelves, a distinction that seems to be based on the closeness of a piece of writing to ‘reality.’ We are unlikely to find any history books in the fiction section, but why should this be the case? Who created the division between myth and history and for what reason? ‘Post-ist’ thinking since the 1960s and what has been called the ‘linguistic turn’ shifted worries about whether the mind and its ideas represent reality appropriately to the problem of how language represents reality through discourse. This shift posed a challenge to the 19th century belief that some sort of empiricism was the proper basis or the practice of professional history, and that the works of the historian had the status of an epistemology, i.e. that historians possed certain empirical methods by which they could have objective and demonstrable knowledge of the ‘pas...

Rather than seeing Marx’s additions to Hegel’s ethereal understanding of the driving forces of history as a mere substitution of the ‘x’ in the equation, i.e. changing the Hegelian Geist for the Marxist forces of production, this essay argues that, as Hegel said of Kant’s philosophy in relation to his own, Hegel’s philosophy constituted for Marx not just a basis but a point of departure for his own philosophy. Hence, Marx not only added materiality to Hegel’s philosophy but in many ways went beyond it, as the case study of Marx’s Eighteenth of Brumaire will show. Hegel giving a lecture But let’s start with a basic outline of Hegel’s philosophy, especially his view of history and its driving forces. The importance of history for Hegel resides on his understanding of reality not as a given state of affairs but as a historical process of perpetual change. The driving force behind this historical process is the ethereal, ambiguous and much-debated Geist (mind/spirit), which is th...

Andrej Grubacic’s and Staughton Lynd’s Wobblies and Zapatistas is a different kind of history book. Being a conversation between both, the main text is formed by Lynd’s answers to Grubacic’s questions, in which the former reflects on his trajectory as an activist and civil rights lawyer in the US. It is a form of oral history, in which Lynd draws from his personal experience to answer Grubacic’s questions, and in doing so creates a historical narrative of his time. Although many times confusing due to its lack of a single narrative and Lynd’s multiple digressions, the book is innovative because the historian (Grubacic) gives voice to the historical subject (Lynd in this case) with only partial guidance; Grubacic leads the conversation by choosing the questions, but it is Lynd who ultimately has the last word. This is the complete opposite to what is common in most historical accounts, in which the historian is the only writing authority. Moreover, Grubacic’s intention is not to portr...

Pogge’s Global Resource Dividend (GRD) has been criticised as an unrealistic or impractical proposal, but there are also significant normative objections to his argument. Not only could the GRD effects be less predictable than Pogge supposes, but they could also be counter-productive to his main aim. Pogge’s solution to eradicating systemic poverty, that is poverty caused by our failure to assist and our failure ‘not to harm’, has been a global resource dividend. The proposal is based on the idea that the global poor own an inalienable stake in all limited resources, and thus the GRD says that states shall not have full libertarian property rights over the natural resources (although retaining sovereignty), but can be required to share a small part of the value of any resources they decide to use and sell. The GRD would focus on those resources that have a negative environmental impact, and would work as a tax levied at the point of extraction. Meant to be a practical, easy to ...

If we agree with articles 25 and 28 of the UNDHR that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and is entitled to a social and international order that guarantees this (and other) rights, severe, absolute global poverty can only be seen as a human rights violation. The violation derives not only from certain agents causing poverty but also from the failure to deal effectively with the elimination of poverty when in a position to do so. It is necessary to go beyond the socioeconomic vs. political rights discussion, looking instead at the conditions under which severe poverty manifests a human rights violation and looking at the agents responsible for it, if any. The distinction between acts and omissions, positive and negative duties, needs to be questioned and both sides bridged for a more fruitful understanding of global poverty as a human rights violation. Let us first look at the side of the violation that occurs when severe poverty is caused. According to ...

In a world in which citizenship is equivalent to medieval feudal status, and in which state borders are heavily patrolled and human movement criminalised, the idea of open borders seems far from achievable. However, open borders are more than desirable from a liberal egalitarian view of justice. Joseph Carens has been one of the most influential proponents of open borders from a liberal egalitarian perspective. Liberal egalitarianism sees all human beings as free and equal moral persons, and considers freedom of movement as a crucial prerequisite for the fulfilment of other rights such as equality of opportunity. Liberal egalitarianism does not require one to deny the importance of freedom of association: we should generally be free to choose our associates, as long as the resulting associations do not lead to unjust, oppressive agreements. The strand of liberal egalitarianism known as luck egalitarianism seeks to reverse all inequalities that are due to brute luck, and thus ho...

Many arguments have been put forward in favor of restricting immigration, from establishing security (especially since 9/11) to dire political realism. Most of the arguments for restrictions are based on the state’s right to self determination, which includes rights such as freedom of association or preserving culture. However, not only are these justifications inadequate in themselves but also can be easily trumped by the human right to freedom of movement and subsistence if we consider the current context of extreme global inequalities and severe global poverty, in which citizenship is equivalent to medieval feudal status. Christopher Wellman has argued for border restrictions based on a state’s right to freedom of association. Seeing states as autonomous bodies and comparing them with private clubs or marriages, Wellman holds that the state’s right to freedom of association includes the right not to associate and the right to disassociate. Although recognising that the state’s ...