Jordan Peterson gets it wrong on inequality

In practical terms, though, those socialist principles can be furthered through educational, social and cultural opportunity, voluntary job rotation, a reduced working week and opportunities for fulfilling voluntary labour. The viability of these things can be supported by a strong social wage, and regime of social insurance.

Peterson argues 'the Left can go too far' mentioning the Soviets, Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, Cuba and today's Venezuela. What this has to do with the feminism he discusses, and which seems to be his central focus, is lost on this writer. Also missing in this grandiose dismissal is any consideration of 'capitalist atrocities'. Wars such as World War One with tens of millions killed, the massacres of over half a million in Indonesia in the 1960s and over 300,000 in Guatemala in the 1980s.

To that we could add atrocities and oppression elsewhere in Central and South America, and the War in Vietnam. That war spilled over into the US bombing of Cambodia and Laos, destabilising Cambodia with the consequent rise of the Khmer Rouge.

And indeed, while the current Venezuelan Government is not ideal, its developing inclination to repression is informed by foreign intervention and destabilisation including sanctions and direct support for an usurper against the elected government. Venezuela's actual policies (support co-operatives, support for public education, housing and health, socialise oil profits) are not at all 'extreme' in the 'wide sweep' of history. Venezuela's future must be decided by the Venezuelans, and UN involvement in elections may be acceptable, but not US intervention.

But the real problem with Peterson, here, is that any robust democratic socialist program is associated with 'the Left going too far' - and hence rejected out of hand. Peterson assumes an essential link between socialism and totalitarianism which does not stand up in the face of various other examples - such as the Austro-Marxist experience between 1917 and 1934.

The connection Peterson tries to draw between the 'equity politics' he discusses – and Stalinism – is also threadbare.

To conclude: some 'equity' policies – such as quotas applied to representative government – may be workable and desirable but too cumbersome to introduce to every sector of society. And it begs the question why we are not considering the place of social class in all of this as the main factor in discrepancies of economic and political power.

The most efficient correctives for inequality may well go beyond quotas. For instance, subsidies for 'feminised' sectors such as Aged Care and Child Care which typically involve strong exploitation. Also:

• Comprehensive universal and socialised health care.
• A regulated labour market and industrial liberties.
• A fully funded and first class public education system, including free Tertiary education.
• And the opening up of 'education for active and critical citizenship' to everyone ; including a balanced consideration of the entire political spectrum, and the promotion of political activism for a healthy democracy.

Again as Sweden demonstrated during its 'golden age', a strong and comprehensive welfare state, social wage, social insurance regime, can provide for real social security and happiness. Note too that social security also makes it easier for industries to modernise. Transitions can be 'softened' by re-education and training, and by active industry policies which seek to maintain full employment, creating new jobs for displaced workers while, where possible, making the most of existing skills sets.

Peterson tries to construct some simplistic opposition between 'equal opportunity/meritocracy' and 'equity/equality of outcome'. In fact there is a 'democratic socialist middle ground' here.

Meritocracy and equal opportunity are often myth-like since schools are not equally-resourced and class often dictates educational opportunity. Gross inequality results in a 'capitalist aristocracy' dominated by billionaires – who have political access and influence ordinary citizens can barely dream of. The heights of power in the US particularly are influenced by nepotism and private fund-raising by capitalists while Clive Palmer's influence in the 2019 Australian Federal Election shows 'elections can be bought'.

Meanwhile, in the US especially a 'middle class' is constructed as a political support base. But even these could be rendered destitute through unanticipated health expenses where there is not sufficient health insurance.

The postulated 'middle class', much of which is working class in fact, is 'disciplined' through fear of descent into the working poor (Walmart pays $11/hour and that is a big improvement on the past. The federal minimum wage in the U.S.[is] $7.25 and the working poor are 'disciplined' through fear of descent into utter destitution.

Further, to provide a more 'global' perspective: In early 2019, Oxfam claimed that the World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%.

With appropriate social wage, welfare and social insurance policies, as well as labour market liberties and regulation and a genuinely and strongly progressive tax system, it is possible to have much greater equality without resort to 'extremes'. The establishment of a robust mixed economy, and support for co-operative enterprise ought not be rendered 'marginal' either.

The Mondragon experience in Spain is instructive. It is also arguable that such combined policies can be more effective than cumbersome quotas applied to every aspect and corner of society. In certain instances, though, gender quotas have proved very effective - for instance in promoting women's representation in Australia's Parliamentary Labor Party.