These are times of extreme inequality, visceral political polarization and destructive culture wars. But the philosopher Daniel Chandler – with a PhD from Cambridge and currently a professor at the London School of Economics – envisions the possibility of building a free, fair and egalitarian society. How to achieve it? For Chandler, the answer lies in a fusion of socialism and liberalism following the principles of the important but little-known American philosopher John Rawls. Chandler's new book, titled Free and equal: what would a fair society look like? (Free and Equal: What Would a Just Society Look Like?), has been praised by economic heavyweights such as Thomas Picketty and Amartya Sen.
Do you think that the so-called neoliberal paradigm is already over?
There is a consensus that the ideas dominant in the last 30 or 40 years are already in decline. Neoliberalism, if we are going to call it that, that is, this free market liberalism and strong individualism, is responsible for many of the problems that we face today in all the democracies of rich countries: political polarization, inequality, culture wars, climate crisis. It no longer has the support of the intellectual elite, nor of media commentators nor the population in general. But it is not clear what will replace it.
Why do you think an alternative model has not yet emerged?
In the 1970s and 1980s, when the free-market right-wing model took hold, neoliberals based their assault on power on established thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. That gave them a strong boost. Perhaps new progressive coalitions can find similar inspiration because the ideas we need already exist. They are those of John Rawls.
Rawls is not as well known as the fathers of neoliberalism.
No, but he is an enormously important thinker in 20th century philosophy who occupies a prominent place in the history of Western thought, on a par with Plato, Kant, Hobbes, Marx... I have tried to develop a program based on his philosophy, and especially the so-called principle of difference, that is, that society must be organized to optimize the expectations of those who have the least.
His reading of Rawls seems a kind of fusion between the traditions of liberalism and socialism. Is that so?
Yes, it is a liberal socialism, very committed to pluralism and freedom and, at the same time, has an egalitarian vision of shared prosperity and equality. I think it is the synthesis that Rawls offers us. The agenda has to go far beyond redistribution. It is not enough to use income taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor. We must confront inequality at its origins and, above all, at work. Hence the importance of predistribution, fairness in wages before taxation, and not only in redistribution. That is, we need strong unions, collective agreements, and high minimum wages. You have to believe in the value of work, dignity and self-esteem. The creation of a basic minimum income, for example, would raise wages and productivity, allow people to study more and do work that is rewarding or useful in a social sense, such as creative or care work, but whose remuneration is not very elevated.
The word freedom seems to have been hijacked by a new right, which aggressively contrasts it with socialism.
I reject that argument. In reality, freedom and equality are not in tension. You don't have to choose between them. We have to recognize the essential importance of both and how they work together.
And in the area of culture wars?
Following Rawls, these divisions must be resolved not through a moralizing debate but by appealing to a series of political values that we can share. For example, LGBT rights must be defended, but it is essential to adopt a respectful attitude towards social conservatives. We have to get out of a moral debate, on both sides, and emphasize the right of everyone to lead their own life according to their convictions and with the support of the law. This goes for other areas such as abortion. The progressive politics that I would like to see is the emphasis on pluralism and universal values against the populism and identity politics that divide us.
Does nationalism enter Rawls' universe?
I think it can be useful to talk about an idea of nationalism or liberal patriotism. Progressive liberals have underestimated the importance of the shared solidarity and identity that a national community generates. It cannot, obviously, be an identity based on ethnicity or religion. It has to be a commitment to certain national values of freedom, democracy, equality and justice historically related to the country.
The irony is that the triumph of neoliberals in economic policy has returned us to a patrimonial wealth structure in the style of the 19th century or earlier.
Yes. There is no intergenerational mobility. A young man whose father earns $10,000 more than his friend's parents ends up earning $5,000 more than his friend at his own job. I not only defend a universal minimum income but also a minimum inheritance provided by the State that everyone receives. As Picketty proposes, each young person upon turning 18 should receive 120,000 euros, either directly from the State or from a citizen wealth fund. All of this would be compatible with a dynamic market economy, but we would change the rules to make it more equitable.
According to your Rawlsian interpretation of liberal socialism, should a company be state or private?
It would not mainly be the defense that a company has to be owned by the State, but rather transferring power to workers so that they design a workplace that reflects their own values and so that work has meaning. We must democratize work, seek a balance between benefits and a more relaxed work life, and defend that life has some meaning. Dignity and respect are key.
