The Malevolent Seven

What’s the latest big idea changing the world? What new theory should we be checking out? The fascination with something completely different is understandable. But sometimes, knowing the roots of the challenges we face is just as important.

Take the following seven sets of ideas that originated in the 19^th century, they captivated countless people right through to today, and we should not overlook their significance. 

[1] Free Market Individualism

[championed by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) and William G. Sumner (1840-1910)]

The idea is that businesses left to buy and sell freely without government interference would compete thoroughly so that the ones with the most to offer would get ahead, and the badly run ones would fall by the wayside. Similarly, individuals would thrive or miss out according to their natural ability. 

In practice, there are always businesses that will, in the absence of proper regulation, exploit workers, deceive customers, and get away with selling harmful products or causing damaging side-effects. Meanwhile, individuals are left without enough to live on, and dwindling demands lead to economic crises.

[2] Nationalism

[championed by Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896) and Charles Maurras (1868-1952)]

The idea is that one’s country will demonstrate its military strength over others, and everyone can feel proud about belonging to a powerful nation that nobody dares to withhold a due show of deference.

In practice, jingoistic folly leads one’s country to costly military misadventures. Even in cases where one’s army succeeds in defeating others, it foments resentment and resistance, draining resources and wasting lives in deplorable campaigns.

[3] Anarchism

[championed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-65) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76)]

The idea is that without being restricted by government controls, people will work out by themselves what they should do, how they are to relate to each other, and everyone will share resources and help each other in the best possible way.

In practice, in the absence of any enforceable conflict-resolution mechanism, disagreement descends into chaos. No one wants to step forward lest they are accused of trying to dominate others, and the power vacuum persists until someone by force imposes their will on everyone else.

[4] Communism

[championed by Karl Marx (1818-83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895)]

The idea is that a revolutionary vanguard will put an end to an inherently unworkable economic system, and set up a new society where the interests of workers will shape all policies and arrangements.

In practice, the vanguard will in the name of the revolution hold on to absolute power, devise economic arrangements which will benefit a minority, and persecute anyone who dares question the new regime.

[5] Amoralism

[championed by Nietzsche (1844-1900)]

The idea is that one should discard all conventional moral codes, ignore what others have to say about good and evil, and one would then be able to strive to become the best possible version of oneself.

In practice, anyone who rejects moral sensibilities will act solely on the basis of what they want for themselves. They dismiss concerns for the suffering of others, refuse to cooperate for any common good (which for them, cannot possibly exist), and respect only their own ego.

 

[6] Technocratic Scientism

[championed by Auguste Comte (1798-1857)]

The idea is that a group of scientific experts can be entrusted with governing society because they have the abilities to work out the solutions to any problem, and how to implement them.

In practice, science is a fallible enterprise, and without objective checks by others, and openness to revisions, a closed group can commit serious errors. Authoritarian regimes have had privileged groups of technocrats with decision-making powers in certain policy areas (eugenics, dam building, etc) with calamitous results.

[7] Religious Fundamentalism

[championed by Charles Hodge (1797-1878), A. C. Dixon (1854-1925) and R. A. Torrey (1856-1928)]

The idea is that a detailed and accurate reading of holy texts will lead one to grasp precisely what God wants people to do, and one can then be absolutely certain that acting on that understanding has God’s total backing.

In practice, people continue to have different interpretations of sacred books, but some who have come to believe that they alone know what God thinks begin to impose their ideas and practices on others regardless of the distress and suffering they cause them.

Public Administration v Business Management

Why are managers in the public and private sectors treated so differently? The former are talked about in terms of layers – all too many layers, they are a drain on precious resources, they are paid too much, they get in the way of the ‘real’ workers, and they are to be blamed for the many things that go wrong in the public sector. The latter are referred to as entrepreneurs, leaders of industry, who must be paid a lot if they are to be attracted to take on any job, they are worth every penny because they have to take tough decisions, and make money for their company.

But isn’t this all a mirage to give the impression that the private sector is somehow superior to the public sector? Think about it. 

At the most basic level, all organisations – private or public – need managers, otherwise there would be no overall planning, no coordination, no strategic adjustment in response to disparate feedback. Too many layers of command and control would – again in the private or public sector – be counter-productive, but lack of management support means that operational staff have to set aside time to do the planning and coordination, only less well because they can neither focus on organising everyone else nor concentrate on carrying out their own work.

As for pay, managers in the public sector are generally paid less well than their counterparts in the private sector. Some try to argue that this must be down to public sector managers not being ‘good enough’ to get private sector jobs, or they simply haven’t got the ‘go-getter’ mentality to work for businesses. This trite observation overlooks two factors. Firstly, pay structures in the public sector are on the whole bound by a greater degree of equity, and both the gaps in pay across the different ranks and comparable rates of pay increase are kept in check. In the private sector, the higher one goes in the management chain, the more one tends to be able to secure much higher pay and pay rises than people lower down. Secondly, and this might be difficult for people who can think of little beyond monetary self-interest to understand, there are many people who are motivated by the ethos of public service, and do not consider salary level the be-all-and-end-all in career planning.

Leaving aside the fact that private sector managers may play only a minor part in their company’s profit-making (which could be mostly down to the hard work of operational staff who get just a tiny share of it), or barely breaking even, it should be noted that their public sector counterparts have to deal with pressures that are of a whole different order.

Public administrators – responsible for policy development, strategic planning, service delivery – have to constantly balance competing demands and interests. There is no such thing as ‘this is not our business’ because everything in the public domain connects with each other, and the politicians in charge rightly want to address any issue that is impacted by the activity any public administrator is handling. Different people have different views and expectations; housing decisions affect community safety; environmental arrangements affect public health; and one has to strike a sensitive and effective balance if one is not to end up upsetting everyone.

In the private sector, good management can generate higher revenue and thus more resources to do one’s work. In the public sector, good management can improve services which lead to higher demands with no corresponding increase in funding, and one has to come up with constant innovations as well as the good old ‘efficiency’ cuts to keep things going.

Finally, there is the public accountability and intense scrutiny that places public administrators directly under the microscope of political oversight. There is no hiding behind commercial confidentiality, a manager working for a government body has to be prepared to answer questions – raised in any quarters – about any aspect of their work.

There are public-spirited managers in the private sector who have made a move to the public sector, but some have moved back to the business world not because of pay, but because managing in the public domain – for those who have never experienced it – is surprisingly challenging.

A Right Slippery Slope

The Republican Party in the US has become a vehicle for the cult of Trump. It does whatever Trump wants, even though all Trump wants is more money and power for himself. Some people, especially former Republican supporters, could not understand how this has happened. Around the world, alarm bells are ringing as more budding autocrats are looking to copy Trump’s playbook to gain power and start their own reign of egocracy. 

To make sense of all this – and how it could take place in other countries – we need to go back towards the end of the 19^th century when the Republican, William McKinley, won the presidency (1897-1901) with the support of millionaire businessman, Mark Hanna, on a broad economic platform. McKinley backed protective tariffs (because businesses at the time wanted them, not despite their opposition as it is the case with Trump), and put forward policies favourable to farmers, industrial workers, and immigrants to the cities. 

When Theodore Roosevelt succeeded McKinley as the next Republican President (1901-1909), he continued to focus on the economic interests of the country, which led him to tackle monopolistic and other harmful business practices which dampen competition and deprive the public of reliable goods and services. He promoted a form of responsible capitalism – to enable businesses to thrive but also ensure they do not hurt the interests of workers and consumers, and that taxes contribute to building national resources and amenities for everyone.

Theodore Roosevelt’s progressive approach came to be rejected by the Republican Party when big business interests increasingly dominated its policy thinking. From 1921 to 1933, three successive Republican presidents – Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover – steered the party firmly towards serving the wealthy corporate elite. Tax cuts for the rich, low wages and job insecurity for the poor, leading to lack of demand for goods produced, factory closures, banks endangered by debts, collapse of share prices, and the Great Depression.

The Democrats under Presidents F. D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman (1933-1953) responded to the mass unemployment and poverty afflicting the US with a three-prong strategy: the New Deal safety net for all Americans, sustained investment in vital infrastructure for the country, and regulatory safeguards to curtail irresponsible business behaviour.

Big business leaders unhappy with the Democrats’ approach poured funds into strategists and advocacy groups to come up with ways to turn the table. Their core concern was removing regulatory restraints so they could maximise their profits at the expense of consumers, workers, and the environment; having to pay less tax; and reducing public provisions so that people would be more dependent on private enterprise. The corporations most drawn to this project were those engaged in business activities that required the closest public scrutiny – guns and other weapons, fossil fuels and other pollutants, pharmaceuticals and private health insurance, gambling and other harmful addictive offers, speculative financial deals, etc. But the Republican Party could hardly present itself as the party to help the wealthy few get even richer. What can it do?

In the 1960s and 1970s, a series of events gave Republican leaders a chance to reposition the party. The liberation culture favouring gender equality and more relaxed attitudes towards sex-related matters provoked a clamouring for ‘traditional’ values. The determination by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson to advance civil rights for all led to a backlash which handed the hitherto solidly Democrat-dominated South to the Republicans. The protest against and eventual American withdrawal from the Vietnam War stirred up fervent anti-Communist feelings that backed heavy defence spending and military intervention. The oil crises of the 1970s caused economic problems which provided the excuse for bringing in the ‘free market’ alternative.

With the help of William F. Buckley, goaded by Pat Buchanan, and steered by Milton Friedman and others, the Republican Party under Presidents Ronald Regan and the two Bushes moved ever closer to invoking God to ‘uphold the values’ of a ‘traditional, Christian, essentially white America’, while favouring the rich and leaving the poor ever more vulnerable. But while they still felt that they must be careful in not going too far in turning everyday prejudice into fanaticism, for Donald Trump nothing would be too far so long as it would provide cover for him to secure gifts, favours, and money for him and his closest allies. And the Republican Party today is with him all the way. Basic rights are trampled on, discrimination endorsed, judicial rulings are ignored, convicted criminals who stormed the Capitol are pardoned, and innocent people are arrested and deported without trial. 

Anyone who thinks it’s OK to follow the Republicans’ lead, should be under no illusion what is at the end of that slippery slope.

The ‘Sleight of Vote’

One of the most deviously potent lines in politics is “That’s what the people voted for” – which seems to silence even seasoned interviewers, as though nothing more can be said if the ‘people’s vote’ card has been played.

But let’s rewind and watch carefully how we have gone from the casting of votes to what is actually being done thereafter. There are three types of trick which might be at work here.

[1] The Blank Cheque trick:

‘Populist’ dictators would claim that a single electoral victory is enough to instigate arbitrary rule. But in a real democracy, election results only ever confer strictly limited powers to carry out legitimate policy commitments. There is no blank cheque. For example, those who have obtained public office cannot go on to imprison people on the basis of their ethnicity, collaborate with tax evaders to leave citizens to die from hunger and disease, torture people for the way they pray, cancel all future elections, or close all schools and media except for those that will praise the new leader. Only fascists pretend that winning an election means they can do whatever they want thereafter. Democracy only works if people are assured that whoever wins power through the vote, their own basic wellbeing would not be capriciously violated.

[2] The Deceived Offer trick:

Another trick is to entice voters with one set of promise, knowing that victory will enable them to do something quite different. Famously, Brexit advocates insisted in many public forums that leaving the EU would NOT mean leaving the Single Market, that millions saved would be handed to the NHS, and the economy would thrive from the overall increase in trade. When the Brexit vote was won, these same advocates claimed that voters had given them the mandate to pull the UK out of the Single Market, resulting in the country losing out in trade and revenue, with nothing diverted to help the NHS which many of the most vocal Brexiters actually plotted to end through privatisation. To try to push through what was not actually promised is not having a democratic mandate at all.

[3] The Manipulated Vote trick

Last but not least, the voting process itself might not be valid if it has been undermined by partisan manipulation. Consider the following tactics: make it more difficult for those likely to vote against one to register to vote, or target them with contrived barriers (like ID cards, or distorted checking arrangements) to stop them voting on the day; redraw boundaries so unfavourable votes are pulled away to minimise their impact; send out false information about when or what vote is taking place; tamper with electronic voting machines; ensure one’s plutocratic backers can spend immeasurably more than one’s opponents to distract voters from the issues being voted on. Outcomes of manipulated votes are not representative of what citizens – informed and unhindered – would have supported, and therefore lack real legitimacy.

By a ‘sleight of vote’, contemporary authoritarians seek to emulate their forerunners in the 1930s and win by all dubious means enough votes to claim electoral victory. Thereafter, their plan is to brush aside the rule of law, rescind any promise of moderation they might have previously made, and plough ahead with their ruthless seizure of wealth and power. It is a plan that must be exposed and halted.

Speak Truth to the People

[Will our political leaders speak truth to the people? They’d be welcome to use this outline I’ve prepared earlier …]

We all want things to get better.

And they can get better, if we face up to what the real challenges are, and focus on tackling them.

But if we allow those who only think about enriching themselves and their wealthy backers to deceive us on every major issue, things will just get worse.

When they tell you that deregulation is good, that’s because their profiteering friends want to get rid of basic standards that protect you and your family. What they don’t tell you is that you’d not only be worse off as workers and consumers, but when the financial markets are so deregulated that banks can take totally irresponsible risks, we get hit by financial crises like the one in 2008, and everyone’s in jeopardy until banks get bailed out.

When they tell you that leaving the EU is good, that’s because they can deregulate even more and lower standards even further. What they don’t tell you is that it would hurt our economy, our trade, our businesses, so much that our country now has billions of pound less for everything you care about.

When they tell you to blame immigrants for everything, that’s because they want you to vent your frustration against people who make easy targets. What they don’t tell you is that these people are hard workers, carers, problem-solvers, who pay taxes, and without them our country would be poorer in countless ways.

& they tell us to dismiss Net Zero and reject policies to cut carbon emissions, that’s because they are on very good terms with fossil fuel producers. What they don’t tell you is that pollutions and climate fluctuations are causing severe damages, and renewable energy offers the only real alternative to get us to a healthy and sustainable future.

Instead of listening to these people who attack everything that is actually valuable to you, and who offer nothing to improve your lives, look at what we are working on.

We are investing in expanding social housing so that people have somewhere decent they can afford to rent, and in building more homes that you don’t have to have above-average income to buy.

We are investing in the training, recruitment and retention of nurses, carers, teachers, doctors and other vital public servants, so that people can always rely on the support of good public services.

We are investing in our green industrial revolution so that there will be more quality jobs, healthier environments, and more dependable sources of renewable energy. 

We are investing in comprehensive security for everyone so that protection is strengthened against military and terrorist threats, criminal violations, the spread of infectious disease, and the impact of poverty.

And we are investing in building relations with countries we can count on so that when those trying to isolate or harm us, we are able to work with genuinely trusted allies to achieve what we alone would not be able to do.

Despite all that, you will no doubt be told to brush aside what we say. You will be urged to keep blaming the scapegoats they daily remind you to blame. But remember this – what they strive to achieve is what hurts you; what you really need for a better life is what they condemn; and what we are doing is what will bring about lasting improvement.

The ‘Inequality’s OK’ Fallacy

A common defence of inequality is that it does not matter so long as people are better off than they might otherwise be, or they have enough to get by. Concerns about inequality are then dismissed as dogmatic or naïve because efforts to reduce inequality might make lives worse for those who are doing ‘well’ even they currently have comparatively less than others.

Many people are taken in by this line of argument, but let us unpack what is being said. The ‘better off’ clause is often brought in by comparing prevailing conditions with what happened in the past. For example, why moan about your share of the company’s earnings going down from X% to Y% when your actual pay has gone up? Well, what if the unequal sharing out reflects the power of those in charge to take a larger share? Furthermore, any increase in pay may not lead to a ‘better off’ position, if prices have more widely risen, the bosses are demanding tougher work targets for gains that would mostly go to them, or job security is declining as the hiring/firing power of those in charge grows with their relative financial strengths.

Whether someone is ‘better off’ depends on many conditions other than the extras their bosses give them. The extra pay may not help one keep pace with getting the better life others can take for granted. For example, as medical care improves, it is no consolation to say to someone denied the latest treatment, “you are better off than you would have been fifty years ago”, when other people today can get far more effective help with reducing the pain and curing the condition one is suffering from. The same goes for the notion of ‘enough to get by’. Are we supposed to peg the standards of ‘getting by’ to survival in primitive times, or attaining the average lifespan of 30 or 40 years in a medieval village? Or do we factor in how society has developed, and what resources and opportunities now exist for people to utilise?

How those resources and opportunities are generated and accessed depends on the socio-political arrangements that are in place. And here is where inequality poses an even deeper problem that no one can ignore.

Inequality in wealth inevitably brings inequality in power. That power gap has meant that the rich can (and some certainly do) load the societal dice in their own favour at every turn. The more obvious tactics include: donations to politicians and parties that would help them and hinder those who might not comply with their agendas (e.g., workers, unions, environmental activists); hiring expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make sure the legal system works as far as possible for their benefit at the expense of those who cannot afford to fight back; and funding media and ‘thinktank’ output that promotes initiatives that would help strengthen their position.

Meanwhile, those with a dwindling share of wealth and power find themselves with less influence over public polices and suffer accordingly. Housing becomes a growing problem for them whatever they earn at the bottom half (two-thirds even) of the income pyramid, as the wealthy buy up properties as investment. The superrich also buy up havens aboard and live in pristine surroundings, while others pay the price for the polluted air and dire water management coming from companies owned by wealthy investors. Educational betterment is increasingly reserved for those from rich families as universities become unaffordable for most.

We now come to the ‘Let Sleeping Inequalities Lie’ line – based on the alleged wisdom that attempts to tackle inequality could just make things worse for everyone. This simply ignores what the New Deal achieved in the US, the impact of Attlee’s post-war reforms, and the enviable quality of life (as measured by every global indicator) attained by the Nordic countries through their inequality-reducing policies. Inequalities in power should and could be reduced to improve our lives. What’s more, left to fester, they might well bite back with a vengeance.

The Real Communitarian Challenge

We’re still hearing commentators say that progressive politicians should be more ‘communitarian’ in backing ‘traditional’ values and outlook – which are taken to mean anti-diversity, anti-immigration, and prioritising local concerns over global issues. But they are mistaken on two counts.

Firstly, as anyone who has studied the works of bona fide communitarian thinkers would know – communitarian ideas are about improving people’s lives by learning from their collective experiences. Throughout history, communities have many different traditions and practices, and which of these should be retained, revised, or rejected, should be based on the impact they have on people, and what they discover from each other as they explore possible changes and what beneficial or harmful consequences may follow. Communitarians criticise the discarding of past arrangements on the basis of any dogmatic assumption, as much as they object to keeping all arrangements regardless of their effects.

Secondly, any serious communitarian analysis of society would tell us that communities would not in fact be better off with less diversity, rejection of immigration, or turning a blind eye to global issues. It is not an ideological declaration, but practical examinations that inform us that enabling people with different backgrounds to mix and cooperate enriches their lives; migrants bring skills and dedication that would not be in demand if there were not significant unmet needs; and local concerns cannot be effectively addressed unless global issues are properly dealt with too.

Communitarian findings do not support insular fossilisation of an imagined past as the way to a good life. They consider the evidence revealed in community life, and point to what works better than other alternatives. Three of these are particularly worthy of note.

[A] Communities that foster Mutual Responsibility: 

Communities where their members mingle freely irrespective of their backgrounds are more inventive, productive, and at ease in collaborating with others from inside or outside their own areas. With their members’ general respect for one another, and their sense of responsibility for how their actions can affect others, such communities are more adaptive to changes, harmonious in resolving differences, and less prone to being divided by irrelevant or trivial differences.

[B] Communities that support Cooperative Enquiry: 

Communities where their members learn by sharing arguments, discoveries, experiments openly are more advanced in obtaining reliable information, developing useful theories and practices, and investigating the veracity of contested claims. Unlike communities that are dominated by arbitrary dogmas or self-proclaimed unquestionable authorities, communities that learn cooperatively are more capable of problem-solving, and exposing harmful prejudices and fallacies.

[C] Communities that empower Citizen Participation:  

Communities where their members share power and can influence decisions that affect their lives are more cohesive, stable, and disposed to take joint ownership of actions undertaken to deal with the challenges they face. Having to take account of others, with none too powerful to dictate terms, such communities have more dependable means to pool their efforts and resources in collective endeavours for their common benefits, and are less vulnerable to chaos or oppression.

People who advocate the retention of damaging features of dysfunctional communities are no more ‘communitarians’ than people who demand the retention of harmful aspects of polluted environments are ‘environmentalists’. The real communitarian challenge is to develop policies and practices that will help communities move forward in becoming more conducive to mutual responsibility, cooperative enquiry, and citizen participation.

--

You can order the book, Communitarianism: politics, society & public policy from Bloomsbury: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/communitarianism-9781350422421/

 

For a free preview of the introductory chapter, visit: 

https://bloomsburycp3.codemantra.com/viewer/67d050e5ee3588000125971e