Roz Fazli; Mohsen Aliheidary
Abstract
After coronavirus pandemic in the early months of 2020 in the world, Alain Badiou, French Marxist philosopher, tried to analyze the issue on behalf of the government in an article. He declared that the bourgeoisie state must pay attention to more general interests at the same time it takes care of the ...
Read More
After coronavirus pandemic in the early months of 2020 in the world, Alain Badiou, French Marxist philosopher, tried to analyze the issue on behalf of the government in an article. He declared that the bourgeoisie state must pay attention to more general interests at the same time it takes care of the interests belonging to its class. He defined the situation as a confrontation with a public enemy. The realistic efforts of Alain Badiou as an idealistic philosopher in understanding the French state was unexpected for all his colleagues and critics. This article tries to explain how the coronavirus pandemic is neither a philosophical nor a metaphysical situation through the criticisms of Alain Badiou's recent stance in the epidemic situation, and why Badiou's recommendations to Emmanuel Macron administration do not meant to justify ineffectiveness of Neoliberal policies confronting with the coronavirus pandemic. In order to find the answer, we try to define Badiou's philosophical approach and understand its relation to the concept of "event" as the central concept in his philosophical discourse and it goes on to examine how the Corona pandemic situation is not a philosophical event or situation, and that Allen Badiou's political stance against Macron's government in the current context, despite his conservative form, is further understood in his radical philosophy. Finally, the proposal of this political philosopher - moving towards a model similar to the welfare state - with the economic foundation and political model of the current hegemony in the capitalist world, is considered as a possible solution in the face of the corona situation.
Roxana Niknami
Abstract
In the last 30 years, the welfare state has been doubted and many believe that the welfare state is in conflict with the nature of modern and post-industrial capitalism. The financial crisis in the eurozone, which began in 2008, once again, has entered the state into European theoretical waves. And it ...
Read More
In the last 30 years, the welfare state has been doubted and many believe that the welfare state is in conflict with the nature of modern and post-industrial capitalism. The financial crisis in the eurozone, which began in 2008, once again, has entered the state into European theoretical waves. And it led to serious reconsideration of state`s functions in the continent. With the onset of the second phase of the crisis, this idea has got power that the existence of a welfare state was the main cause of this crisis and economic downturn. In order to cover the deficit imbalance and the lack of State funding, many theories were put forward to reduce the burden on the state's social and welfare responsibilities. As a result, many European states were forced to apply profound structural reforms and adhere to austerity policies. The result of these policies was a significant reduction in wages, reduction of social services, and privatization of the public sector. The question is: how has the eurozone financial crisis affected the welfare state in the EU and what is the welfare state function in the European social model? The eurozone's financial crisis has lowered the quality of the welfare state in the European Union, due to the slowdown in economic growth, and the only way to save the welfare state is to create a growth with employment,which is achieved through increased competitiveness. To test the above hypothesis, the Danish sociologist Gustavo Sping-Andersen's model will be used.
Abbas Keshavarz Shokri
Abstract
The main question of this paper is that why capitalist welfare state faces crisis. This question will be discussed from Claus Offe’s point of view. The method of this research is documentary research. Therefore Claus Offe and other main theorists’ books and articles, like Martin Carnoy, ...
Read More
The main question of this paper is that why capitalist welfare state faces crisis. This question will be discussed from Claus Offe’s point of view. The method of this research is documentary research. Therefore Claus Offe and other main theorists’ books and articles, like Martin Carnoy, John Keane, Clyde Barrow and Leon Lindberg are used for explaining Claus Offe’s opinions. For Offe, in capitalist societies the state develops in response to periodic crises arising from the basic contradiction in capitalist production: the increasing socialization of production and continuing private appropriation. These crises give rise to development of adaptive mechanisms both internal to the market (oligopolization and monopolization) and through expanded state functions. Offe sees the state as a mediator of capitalist crises or as a crisis manager. In this context, he addresses two fundamental issues: First, what is the relationship of the state to dominant capitalist class, that how it is guaranteed that the state will represent the social interest of capital, while at the same time appearing to be a neutral arbitrator of competition among capitals and between capital and labor. Second, what are the limits imposed on the state's crisis-management functions by inherent necessity to reproduce capitalist relations of production. Findings of this article are that: Claus Offe rejects two principal theories of the class nature of the state: instrumentalism and structuralism. Offe believes that any particular state policy, serves a particular interest of the state, rather than the class interest as a whole. The capitalist state must and will fulfill four functions to reproduce itself. This is what guarantees its class-specific selectiveness. These four functions are: First, the state cannot order production or control it. State cannot initiate noncumulative production in private enterprises. Second, the actors of the state apparatus depend for their survival upon resources derived from the private accumulation process. Third, the state therefore not only has the authority but the mandate to sustain and create conditions of accumulation. Finally, the state has to conceal and deny the three above functions. These contradictory functions will lead to crisis of the state. Offe's capitalist state cannot resolve economic crises in a permanent way. Although called upon to intervene in the capital accumulation process in a way that will preserve capitalist relations of production and willing – through its own institutional interest - but to do so, it is beset by the interests of individual capitalist obstructing this intervention, and by the demands of the working class and other labor constituencies on whom it relies for its source of power. The state is constantly trying to fulfill its capital accumulation function while maintaining its legitimacy. The contradiction – the functional need to pursue systematic needs of an economic and power structure which successfully resists the fulfillment of those needs - explains why reformist policies of the capitalist state seem to display the cyclical pattern of motion in which no point of balance, compromise or equilibrium is arrived at.
