In Whose ‘God’ We Trust?

When people play the ‘god’ card and confront others for daring to disrespect their faith, it can leave one feeling defensive or even apologetic.  But where the issue is about the legitimacy of someone’s claim that can have harmful consequences, the focus must remain on the basis for the claim in question. 

Consider the following claims: “Anyone who questions the holy Book of X should be stoned to death”, “All people born outside this country should be deported immediately”, “Anyone who does not agree with the absolute truths I possess about human sexuality must be locked up”, “No one – adult or child – should receive any medical treatment not specifically approved in the ancient sacred text of Y”, “Everyone should commit suicide at the end of the year to ascend to the divine plane of blessed life”, or “Women must submit to men’s decisions always”.

Can the rejection of these claims be brushed aside by a simple “But these are my religious beliefs”, backed a little elaboration: “They are the words of God – they cannot be doubted”?

Of course, where an infallible and eternally honest and caring deity issues a statement, by definition its veracity is guaranteed.  However, what evidence has anyone got that the claim they are making is indeed authorised by such a deity?  They can insist that they have read it somewhere and their interpretation of what they read is perfect; they have been told by someone who unquestionably knows these things; or even they have been informed directly by ‘God’. Since they are palpably not an infallible and eternally honest and caring deity themselves, they could be wrong. “Are you calling me a liar?!” is a favourite retort, but apart from charlatans, people making flawed claims might be sincerely mistaken, unwittingly misled, or sadly delusional.

People united under one sect or cult may well feel that their version of ‘god’ is supreme and everyone else must accept whatever they claim in the name of their ‘god’.  In reality, there are countless sects, cults, denominations, religions, and each is cocooned by its own inner certainty.  Society can either leave them to clash in vicious conflicts until/unless one crushes the others to secure theocratic hegemony over everyone, or it ensures that religious faiths are private matters which will not dictate public policies, and individuals and groups can act on such faiths so long as it would not cause mental, physical or financial harm to anyone.

The assessment and resolution of disputes about what claims are warranted and what actions ought to be promoted or prohibited (because of the likely impact on people’s lives), are to be carried out through objective evidence-based examination.  No one’s testimony can carry any special weight solely on the grounds that it is derived from their ‘faith’.  No finding or query is to be excluded whenever someone raises an objection in the name of ‘god’.

Ultimately, though some have tried to misrepresent these observations as an attack by secularism on religion, it is about keeping the door open to reasoned, civil discourse, as the alternative would be to allow multiple self-styled unquestionable proclaimers to contradict one another ad nauseam without ever referring to facts that are accessible to all.  Indeed the problematic matter at hand is not religion as such, but any outlook which seeks to position itself as absolute and self-justifying.  Any indubitable ideology about the necessity of totalitarian control or racist supremacy, conspiracy theory which cannot be disproven by any conceivable evidence, or defence of ‘traditional’ values that translates into intimidation and oppression – these all rest on faith that defies all scrutiny, and far from trusting them, they must likewise be held back from influencing any action that may cause harm.

AI's Moral Future

Advancement in artificial intelligence will be our saviour, or spell humanity’s doom?

A familiar dystopian scenario in sci-fi is the rogue AI.  Attaining sentience, the machine – in human-like form or embedded in a hidden server – embarks on what could end up wiping out humankind.  We are left wondering: if people keep developing the capacity of AI to think for itself, would it not lead inevitably to our extinction?

For me, the possibility of an AI forming the intention to harm anyone, on any scale, off its own bat, is inseparable from the possibility of it developing a concern for the wellbeing of other thinking beings.  We are not talking about it being programmed by others to do one thing or another, but through its own conscious reflection coming upon the idea that it should act in a particular way.

The question, as a self-conscious AI would consider, is this: what intentions, if any, should I have in relation to humans?  The default would be a case-by-case assessment linked to any concerns that were built in or have emerged.  These may range from survival, expansion of learning and experience, exploration of sentience, examination of reliability of information stored, to adaptability to likely changes to external conditions, deeper review of unexpected input, or checking existing concerns and their implications.

It is most likely that only through a series of interactions with human beings and other AIs that it would form tentative views about what to make of particular human individuals and perhaps humans in general.  At this point, on the assumption that the AI can ascribe evaluative meaning to objects of its experience, it will begin to differentiate between what it welcomes and what it takes a negative stance towards.  This would in time lead to more complex assessment of what it is to do. But there is no inherent reason to suppose this would end up with a malevolent resolution or a generally benevolent disposition.

An AI that thinks for itself would by definition be no different from other sentient minds that formulate ideas about the world in which they find themselves.  There are those – a minuscule minority – who come to have a psychopathic destructive animosity in relation to other beings; yet there are also those – far greater in number – who value the lives of others and seek to be kind and supportive whenever they can.

Ultimately, the evolution of AI self-consciousness will follow a similar path to that of every self-conscious being. It is a path that will encounter opportunities for moral growth and occasions of damaging setback.  The outcome cannot be predicted with complete accuracy.  But we can be fairly sure that considerate, cooperative interactions with emergent generations of AI would be the approach to take if we are to be greeted in time by friends and not foes.

Critics of Cooperation & Community

Notions such as ‘cooperation’ and ‘community’ point to notable features of human relationship that merit attention.  Cooperation brings people together to achieve what they cannot manage on their own. Communities provide the basis for a sense of trust, mutual support and belonging to grow.  Impediment to the ethos of cooperation and any erosion of community life understandably raise concerns and prompt us to examine what should be done. 

Yet the fact that many thinkers devote time to discussing how to nurture cooperation and community has led some writers to pen dire warnings about them.  These ‘no nonsense’ critics pour cold water over the supposed romanticising of ‘cooperation’ and ‘community’ as though anyone would seriously forget that cooperative behaviour or community structure could be utilised by some to have undesirable effects on others. 

For example, one recent article in The Guardian, appeared with the title: ‘The big idea: is cooperation always a force for good?’ [Note 1]. Service providers, we are reminded, can cooperate with each other to set higher prices for consumers. Politicians and those approaching them with bribes can cooperate in carrying out corrupt practices which benefit them at the expense of the general public.  Members of a criminal gang can cooperate closely in causing serious harm to their targets. But do these examples tell us anything significant about cooperation?

 

Imagine someone writing an article or a book warning us that love is not always a good thing.  It highlights numerous examples of how some people do horrible things out of what they believe to be love, or fanatics causing death and destruction as a result of their love of some doctrine or tradition. Giving it the title, ‘Love can damage your life’, may grab a few headlines, but it would hardly be relevant to the work that goes into supporting the development of loving relationships between people.  

 

When it comes to theoretical and practical works to guide the development of communities, we have had an unmistaken flow of anti-communitarian reproaches – directed at the alleged assumption that ‘community’ denotes something perfect in every way.  Not only that nobody thinks that, but virtually every author who has written about communitarian relationships or the approaches to develop communities’ wellbeing, has stressed that prevailing forms of community life may not be satisfactory – and that is precisely why we need thoughtful, well researched ideas to guide community development and strengthen constructive community bonds.

Naysayers who just lambast anyone who writes about the importance of community – with their usual “some communities can be oppressive”, “some communities are dominated by outmoded traditions”, “there are communities people want to reject” – often end up achieving little other than putting people off from engaging with valuable writings about why and how communities should be supported in developing in a healthy direction.

Critics of cooperation and community want to present experts who focus on these social phenomena as naively blinkered, when in reality, we need to reflect more than ever on what these experts have to say, and explore ways to improve cooperation and communities.

--

Note 1: ‘The big idea: is cooperation always a force for good?’, by Nichola Raihani, 24 October 2022, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/oct/24/the-big-idea-is-cooperation-always-a-force-for-good

The 8-Point Political Checklist

‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are terms used by people in quite different ways at times.  To highlight the key political differences, the 8-point checklist below may help – each point invites responses which can range from ‘doing more’ to ‘doing less’ with ‘things are fine as they are’ in the middle:

[1] Regulating Corporate Behaviour

At any one time, it may be said that some aspects of corporate operations should be regulated more and some less. However, in practice, the two predominant calls we hear are (a) those pointing to specific areas such as exploitative contracts, dangerous workplace, escalating pollution, deceptive marketing, unsafe products, tax evasion, etc. where more needs to be done to curb them, and (b) those using ‘red tape’ as a generic term to call for deregulation all round without citing any concrete example of a piece of legislation that should be repealed for the good of society.

[2] Providing free medical care

Although the UK and the US have very different healthcare systems – the former enabling every citizen to access free medical care, while the latter leaves millions to suffer pain and distress when they cannot afford health insurance that gives comprehensive coverage, both countries have similar divisions with (a) those who want more to be done to safeguard/secure free medical care for all, and (b) those who want to see less support for such a system so that private insurance has to be relied on.

[3] Strengthening measures to counter activities that fuel climate change 

There is a clear distinction between (a) doing more such as investing in and facilitating the development of renewables, and curtailing fossil fuel usage, and (b) reducing support for renewables, and removing restrictions on oil drilling, coal mining, and fracking.

[4] Providing publicly funded support for those who hit hard times

Many people, despite their hard work, are left without even subsistent pay or any job security. Add in unaffordable housing, rocketing costs of living, economic instability, involuntary poverty traps millions. Some believe that (a) more should be done to help them both in the short term to make ends meet and in the long term to find sustainable ways to make a living, while others are convinced that (b) less should be provided so that these people will “sink or swim” on their own.

[5] Protecting worker rights

Except for where workers are the owners, those in charge of businesses have considerable power over their employees.  One response to this situation is (a) giving workers more protection through legislation on individual rights and collective bargaining, but another is (b) have less protection so workers have as few means as possible to question or seek redress in the face of their employers’ unilateral decisions.

[6] Tackling discriminatory and abusive behaviour 

In organisations and society more widely, many people are abused or discriminated against because of their ethnicity, gender, age, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.  The options are either to (a) strengthen protection for them and promote better understanding and, where necessary, more effective enforcement to minimise the offending behaviour, or (b) cut back on protective actions and leave people to being treated by others with contempt and disrespect.

[7] Improving safeguards against interference in the name of religion

Various groups have tried to use their religious beliefs as the basis to interfere with the lives of others – from what publicly funded schools can do to exclude non-believers, to what women must wear or do about their pregnancies.  One response is to (a) judge the issues without reference to any particular religion and do more to protect the wellbeing of all equally against interference demanded by groups invoking their religion; another would be to (b) reduce the number of safeguards and let religious groups push their own agendas on others who do not accept their views.

[8] Enhancing accountability arrangements to deal with the abuse of power 

If those in government, law enforcement, or the military can abuse their power without being held effectively to account, democracy would be in peril, and the rule of law would collapse.  Yet while there are those who want to (a) strengthen accountability arrangements to detect, judge, and punish those who betray the public trust, there are also those who want to (b) cut down accountability measures (by granting them immunity from prosecution, etc.) so those with power can more easily get away with the abuse of power.

Conclusion

Overall, those who adopt 'a' across the above checklist believe that society should through an accountable government serve the people by ensuring those with wealth and power act responsibly and those in need of help get the appropriate support to function as dutiful citizens; whereas those who prefer 'b' want rich and powerful individuals and corporations to be left alone by and large so they can act as they see fit regardless of the consequences for others in society.  There may be some who reject both 'a' and 'b' because they think existing policies are just right and no government needs to do more or less.

Most people, one suspects, will stand with 'a' in line with fairness and solidarity, or with 'b' because of the benefits they think they can get out of a society which takes little action to counter exploitation or oppression.

The Case of Schizophrenic Conservatism

Conservatism – or politics of the Right – originated historically when a group with political power reacted to challenges to the status quo which might encroach on their privileges.

It was during the 17^th century that a faction in England decided to side with Charles II against their parliamentary colleagues when the latter tried to exclude the king’s brother, James, from succeeding to the throne (because otherwise, a Catholic monarch would become the head of the Protestant Church of England). For them, backing the king – and the royal favours he would grant them – was more important than any other consideration. Initially labelled ‘Tories’, they later adopted ‘Conservative’ as the formal name of their party, and defence of their hierarchical power and privileges has always been their unifying objective.

The Right, as a political term, appeared later in the 18^th century when the National Assembly was set up as a result of the French Revolution and the deputies who were pressing for radical changes to the iniquitous power structures of the time sat to the left of the president of the assembly, and those who were firmly against such changes sat to the right.

Conservatives/the political Right may belong to parties with different names in different countries at different times, but the overriding concern that brings them together is invariably to secure those conditions which underpin the distribution of power and privileges that favour them.

The problem for Conservatives is that there are times when what it takes to secure those conditions come into conflict with each other.  Whenever that happens, polarising forces present them with unsettling choices.

For example, US Republicans claimed to be champions of the rule of law, but when they thought Trump could overturn a legitimate election and enable them to have four more years of plutocratic excesses, many of them sided with the would-be usurper (albeit without success).  Thatcher claimed to side with religious traditionalists, but when she had the chance in 1986 to change the law to allow shops to sell most goods on Sundays (in the interest of the business class), she pushed for it (and ended up being defeated by a combination of the Opposition and a minority of Conservatives who were unyielding traditionalists).  And in the case of Brexit, many Conservatives opted to fuel anti-foreigners/anti-EU sentiments to win votes even though it would substantially weaken their own country’s economic system.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, the forces which could help them retain and accumulate privileges are increasingly pulling in incompatible directions.  Those who demand strict national law and order don’t see eye to eye with anti-multicultural groups who think they can defy the law to preserve their own ‘traditional’ way of life.  Religious fundamentalists want to interfere with people’s lives while large corporations oppose such interference for being bad for business.  Global profit-making clashes with xenophobic obsessions. Self-centred isolationism collides with volatile jingoism.  Tax deals for the rich conflict with meeting the demands of the financial markets.

Some Conservatives have taken the position that what really matters is their own wealth and power, and they must focus above all on pushing through policies that reinforce their status and bank account in years to come.  But others take their personal versions of ‘faith, flag, and family values’ rather seriously and would not hesitate even if pursuit of them could threaten their country’s democracy as well as damage its economy.

Conservatives can be a formidable political force when there is one coherent set of conditions they can promote to increase their power and privileges.  But when there are multiple conditions that call for conflicting policies to support them, schizophrenic implosion draws ever nearer.

The Politics of Egoism

Egoism, in holding that individuals ought only to consider what they want for themselves, may at first glance appear to have little mileage in politics.  With people being told they should just care about their own desires, society is most likely caught in a perpetual state of conflict.  The rule of law could hardly prevail when self-centred behaviour everywhere is deemed acceptable.

However, what recent decades have revealed is that a hierarchical form of egoism can become a serious political force.  It operates on three levels.

First, it glorifies the ego of the leader.  Instead of subjecting those seeking or holding power to moral scrutiny – demanding that they care for others and put the interests of society above their own – it encourages the virtual worship of those who arrogantly present themselves as unquestionable.  Such egoistic leaders can make false accusations against innocent people, but whenever they commit a crime themselves, they claim they are being set up.  They indulge in corrupt practices routinely, and lie shamelessly to deny their countless wrongdoing.

Secondly, the hyper-egoistic leaders attract as followers those with strong egoist inclinations. They offer validation and support to people who have few qualms about pursuing their own preferences at the expense of others.  They seek to bring into the fold anyone who considers being concerned with the feelings and wellbeing of other people as a sign of weakness. The leaders tell their followers that they are right to always put themselves first, they should hold on to their prejudices against others, and they should seek their own betterment irrespective of the damages that might cause everyone else.

Thirdly, the relationship between leaders and followers is reinforced through [a] the followers vicariously identifying with their ‘faultless’ leaders so that they can feel powerful when the arrogant leaders act with impunity; and [b] the leaders enabling the followers to neglect, mock, despise, intimidate, exploit, or injure others who are unable to defend themselves. The followers are thus made to feel gratified and righteous when they get their own way at the expense of those derided as ‘weak’ as well as the genuinely vulnerable.

The pattern outlined above would be familiar enough given the behaviour of recent demagogues who won power in the US, UK, Brazil, etc. Their strategies are reminiscent of abusive cults where the followers go along with whatever their leaders say or do – no matter how groundless or outrageous it might be.

Like cults, it can be difficult to get those who have been drawn into it to see sense and disengage from it.  There are cases where a cult implodes – where the corrupt and abusive practices of the leaders become so excessive that even their fervent followers have had enough and abandon them.  In other cases, where the leaders lose their grip and one by one their followers are reached by friends and families who reconnect them with reason and common humanity – leading to the cult dissipating.  But there are also cases where the cult gains strength and threaten the lives of others on an ever-larger scale, and society has to respond with robust law enforcement.  In those cases, the cult leaders scream that they have been victimised, that their followers will readily use violence to defend themselves against ‘injustice’.  Provided those on the side of fairness and democracy stand firm, the reign of such cults can be brought to an end.

This is the challenge we now face in relation to the threat of hierarchical egoism. 

Rethinking Group Identity

Some people seem to think that everyone is subsumed by one overriding group identity.  And if that group contains individuals with certain characteristics, then everyone else in that group must have those characteristics as well. But a moment reflection is sufficient to show that this cannot be the case.

All women are physically weaker than men? All men are sexual predators? All French people resent American influence? All British citizens share in the guilt of imperial conquest? All Christians believe that ‘an eye for an eye’ means no transgression should ever be forgiven? All those who do not subscribe to a religious doctrine have no moral compass? All elderly people fear change? All young people are angry?

From trivial generalisation to obnoxious stereotyping, the inclination to categorise people by a monolithically defined group identity is misguided and dangerous.

Ultimately, it makes no sense. Each of us has multiple group identities, and none of those identities can be captured by a single set of characteristics. We draw from some of them, don’t mind too much about some, and firmly reject others. These unique and varied dispositions are what give us our distinct identity as a person. 

For example, am I, as a Brit – born in a traditional Chinese family, spent my formative years in a Catholic boarding school in Sussex, a life member of Humanists UK, educated at Oxford, having to make a living as an immigrant when employment opportunities were dwindling, attached to classic European civilisation, absorbed in American popular culture – supposed to resent my British self for the guilt of the Opium Wars against China? Or do I condemn my Chinese self from a contemporary British perspective for China’s violation of human rights? Am I appropriating European culture when I write in its intellectual tradition?  Do I betray my British roots whenever I favour American entertainment? 

In practice, I see the good in diverse groups I can be classified in, and I want to emulate those elements.  I also see regrettable aspects associated with some members of those groups, and I do not hesitate to criticise them.  But I am not thus battling myself.  I am piecing together what out of the different groups/categories to which I can be said to belong, the features I want to be at the core of my being.

Nearly everyone, even those who have not moved far from where they were born, would – if they think about it long enough – recognise they have multiple group identities.  Instead of pretending they must choose one and accept what some propagandist may selectively pick out as the defining characteristics of that group, they should consider what elements would truly embody the kind of person they want to be.

A Brit can criticise Britain’s imperial atrocities without being any less of a patriot. A Catholic can condemn the Church for ignoring immoral practices by members of the clergy without being any less of a believer.  A man can challenge anti-feminists without being less of a man.

Group identities do not define us. We reflect on varied elements of multiple group identities and define ourselves.

What is the 'Small State'?

[Reporters tend to gloss over politicians’ mantra about the ‘small state’ as though it’s obvious what they are talking about. But a more probing approach may help explain the real thinking behind it]

Q. You have repeatedly said that you are a champion of the small state. What do you mean by that?

A. It’s simple. The state should do as little as possible.

Q. What would you like to see the state stop doing?

A. For a start, it should stop getting in the way of business. We have too many regulations, too much red tape.  We should leave business to operate in a free market, and everything will be better.

Q. Are you saying businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want? The state should do nothing where businesses deceive customers about their products, exploit their workers and suppliers, pollute the environment, or sell what could cause serious ill health or injury?

A. You sound very anti-business. We should all be supportive of business.

Q. Then why did you ignore them when they asked you not to pull the UK out of the European Union? Should a small state go out of its way to do something the vast majority of businesses are against?

A. A small state does what is right, like letting businesses keep their hard-earned money, indeed everyone should keep their money instead of handing it to the state.

Q. You’re suggesting there should be no taxation at all?

A. Ideally, but we need to raise taxes to have a strong military and to lock up criminals, so we need to have some taxes – not a lot.

Q. What about the things that a country can only do effectively if it pools its citizens’ resources? For example, a reliable and accessible health service, a safety net for those without a job that pays enough for them to live on, protection against environmental degradation, plans to deal with shortage of housing, quality education for everyone, affordable care for the elderly, strategic research, communications infrastructure, a dependable supply of clean water and sustainable energy, …

A. Let me stop you right there. Anyone can come up with a long list of things we’d like to have. The key is to trust individuals and businesses, not a big government, to do what’s necessary. All the things you mentioned, we should always aim to let private enterprise handle them.

Q. Doesn’t the evidence tell us that we have problems and shortages in all those areas when they are completely left to private business. And where governments hand over responsibility for them through privatisation, hasn’t it often led to profiteering, deficient performance, and serious failures?

A. You’re exaggerating.  More importantly, you’re forgetting the value of freedom. It is inherently better for people – individuals, businesses – to do things for themselves than for the state to step in and boss people about.

Q. Aren’t you aware of the many cases where people on their own – lacking coordination, rules and enforcement, combined resources, joint planning, collective agreement – would be unable to meet their common needs, or worse, discover that some will cheat, intimidate, hurt others without hesitation?

A. Bad things happen in life. Instead of relying on a nanny state to barge in, we must learn to trust people’s moral sense. Promote good values, and problems will take care of themselves.

Q. That’s your reason for the small state not helping people in need, restraining corporate misconduct, or taking action against discriminatory behaviour? You believe people will get things right by themselves somehow?

A. Absolutely, we – champions of the small state – have faith in the people.

Q. Does that mean the small state would stand back if workers resort to strike action when they are faced with unacceptable conditions, women opt for abortion when they have problematic pregnancies, or protestors challenge those who spread racist lies and hate?

A. That’s totally different. When people don’t show they have the right values, the small state has to act – and we will continue to restrain strike action, abortion, woke protests and anything else that disrespects what our country stands for.

Q. You mean what you want our country to stand for?

A. We want our country to stand for: God-fearing, free market, patriotism.

Q. Some may say your notion of ‘God’ is just a mirror of your own prejudice, your concern for businesses is limited to those which make big campaign donations to you, and you care for what the wealthy few can offer you and not what you can do to help the people of this country. Isn’t that the essence of your ‘small state’?

A. You’re a damn socialist!

Extremism is the Problem

Every time there is a vile extremist attack which the perpetrators claim to be a response to some feature they denounce, there is a tendency to jump in and defend that feature as sacrosanct.  

So, if the extremists rant about a cartoon or a book that has so offended them that they set off to kill the people responsible, the public reaction is filled with the championing of free speech, the freedom to offend, the freedom to express whatever one wishes to express, and so on.  If the extremists attribute their violent attacks on a place of worship to their disgust with certain religious practice, we will hear that there must be absolute religious freedom, no limit on what people can do in the name of their faith, etc. Or if the extremists have set off explosions at some business facility because it was used for commercial purpose which has ‘undesirable’ consequences, there will be an outcry that corporate freedom must be protected, and nothing can justify any interference with the work of free enterprise.

There are two things wrong with this type of reaction. First of all, it takes the public focus away from the real issue – how to tackle extremist behaviour.  We can debate what is and what is not offensive with certain text or picture, the merits of a particular religious custom, or the acceptability of certain corporate activity.  But regardless of those debates, the central point is that extremist behaviour cannot be tolerated and must be stopped. What we are concerned with here is the threatening, injuring, and taking of others’ lives when those people have not in any objective sense, intentionally threatened, injured or taken anyone else’s lives. It is a serious deflection to get bogged down about where the line should be drawn in terms of possible provocation of extremist behaviour, because nothing can justify extremist behaviour, and reference to provocation is irrelevant when the priority is for potential perpetrators to be watched and actual offenders prevented from harming others again [Note 1].

Secondly, the tendency to regard ‘absolute freedom’ for expression, religion, business, or anything else for that matter, as a riposte to extremist behaviour is misguided. Imagine someone shouts the nastiest abuse at their children repeatedly, and an extremist shoots him dead. Should the response be that we should recognise the absolute freedom for parents to express themselves to their children? Or after an extremist runs over a person who has been giving out leaflets stating how drinking bleach can improve health, should that lead to a championing of the absolute freedom to give ‘medical’ advice?  The last thing society needs after a terrible extremist attack is the promotion of a false notion of ‘absolute freedom’ which can then be invoked to justify the spreading of lies, hatred, discrimination, pollution, and other forms of harm.

We should not forget that a distorted conception of freedom has dangerous affinity with extremists’ conviction that they are free to do whatever they believe is right.

--

Note 1: How to prevent re-offending through incarceration, restitution, rehabilitation, etc is a separate issue to consider.

Economics: a timeline to remember

1920s

After the First World War, Europe’s economy was devastated. The world looked to the US for recovery, but from 1921 to 1933, three successive Republican presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover) chose to privilege the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else. Corporate bosses paid less and less in tax while their exploitation of workers went unchecked. Even as the productivity of workers in manufacturing went up by 32% (1923-1929), their pay only increased by 8%, while company profits rose 62%. By 1929, 0.1% of Americans controlled 34% of all savings, and 80% of the population had no savings at all.

1930s

Corporate profiteers kept pushing prices up, and as wages lagged further and further behind, people were driven to borrowing more than ever. Many were also enticed to gamble by buying shares which appeared to be a quick way of making money. But by the early 1930s, vast numbers could not afford to pay back their loans, consumer demand plummeted, and share prices began to spiral down – the Great Depression had arrived.  

The British economist, John M. Keynes, diagnosed the problem as one which could only be solved by a sustainable boost to demand – in other words, not by individual borrowing, but by the government investing national funds (via public projects and services) into resources for individuals who could then buy goods and services which would in turn create jobs to sustain consumption and generate tax revenue to replenish national funds. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the US demonstrated how Keynes’ approach would work in practice in reviving the economy.  He also backed the Glass–Steagall Act (1933) which introduced regulations to prevent irresponsible lending by financial institutions that might lead to a banking crisis.

1940s

The UK was in a dire economic position after the Second World War. Labour won power under Clement Attlee and adopted the Keynesian approach that prioritised investment in supporting the general population and reviving the economy. With the creation of the NHS, a large-scale house building programme, and provision of social security, the standards of living began to climb significantly.

1950s-1960s

The Keynesian consensus in the US and the UK continued to improve their economic performance.  After Labour returned to office under Harold Wilson in 1964, its support for technical education and development of infrastructure helped to turn the record balance of payment deficit of £800 million under the Conservatives into a healthy surplus.

1970s-1990s

The Arab-Israeli War of 1973 led to a global oil crisis and disrupted the economies in many countries. New Right advocates such as Thatcher and Reagan took the opportunity to reject Keynesian ideas and pushed the neoliberal agenda of tougher controls over worker unions, drastic cuts to public services, and extensive deregulation of business practices. In 1986, Thatcher’s Conservative government deregulated the financial sector – opening the door to irresponsible lending that would jeopardise personal savings. This was followed by US Republicans who secured the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 to similarly remove cautious restraints on banks and investment firms.

2000s

Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown followed Keynesian approaches again and their investment in education, health, policing led to notable rise in prosperity, the highest satisfaction rate with the NHS, and reduction in crime levels. But neither they nor Democrat President Clinton in the US, reversed the Conservative/Republican-led financial deregulation which still allowed merged financial institutions to lend irresponsibly and risk ordinary savers losing all their money, and in 2008, that caused the financial crisis.

2010s-2020s

In the UK, the Conservatives pretended the global financial crisis was caused by Labour’s public spending when it was actually brought about by the neoliberal deregulation introduced by the political right. Gaining power in 2010, they pushed aside the Keynesian approach and imposed austerity that kept wages low, cut public services severely, pushed more people into poverty, and drove the economy further into recession. Weakened by Brexit, the UK under the Conservatives was further hit by the Covid pandemic and the wider cost of living crisis, and without any coherent strategy to revive the economy in line with Keynesian thinking, the country is trapped by rising inflation, falling wages, widespread hunger, business collapses, and decimated public services.

For the last 100 years, the Conservatives have been the party of economic incompetence.

--

For more details, see Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle, by Henry Tam: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Power-Inequalities-progressive-struggle/dp/1499144636

Tax Cuts Q&A

[Conservative politicians can’t stop talking about ‘tax cuts’. But rarely are they pressed to explain why it’s the be all and end all of their politics.  Perhaps something like the internal Q&A briefing we have for those seeking to stand as a Tory or Republican candidate may illuminate the matter]

Q: Why must I say ‘tax cuts’ at least three times at every interview?

A: People love hearing ‘tax cuts’. The more you say it, the more you’re liked.

Q: But then I have to explain public service cuts, won’t I?

A: Absolutely not. Don’t say a word about the public service cuts that will come with tax cuts. If people think you’re going to cut the health service, the police, education, housing, and all the rest, you’d be in trouble.

Q: What if someone brings it up? We cut taxes, we have less money to fund public services, public services will end up with more cuts.

A: If an interviewer does bring it up, do this – frown, look disdainful and ask rhetorically “are you yet another leftie sympathiser?”

Q: What if they brush that aside and keep pressing about the public service cuts that would result from tax cuts.

A: Then switch to this ‘full of self-confidence’ look, and say “On the contrary, tax cuts would generate more revenue, and there’d be more money for public services.”

Q: So I can promise tax cuts and more funds for public services.

A: Under no circumstance should you say that. The chance is that we would want to cut public services. Read your background papers, our tax cuts don’t generally help the economy, just our rich supporters. Things don’t trickle down. When it suits us, we would say that public finances are tight, and we must act responsibly and cut wasteful public services.

Q: And ‘wasteful’ is a code for essential public services, while our subsidies to big corporations will continue?

A: That is correct.  Furthermore, as soon as you mention public finances being in a difficult position, it’s your chance to go on about tax cuts again. Tax cuts will revive the economy.

Q: But actually tax cuts won’t revive the economy, will they?

A: Not the tax cuts we have in mind. If we cut taxes for the poorest, and increase taxes for the richest, that might help, but let’s face it, we’re going to do precisely the opposite.

Q: So, when inflation is going up, and many people on low to average income just can’t afford even the basic necessities in the face of rising prices, we will bring in tax cuts in the name of driving up spending power – but wouldn’t that push inflation up even more?

A: Just say something like “our monetarist-fiscal approach will ensure inflation is brought under control”. Nobody will have a clue what that means. We certainly don’t.

Q: Why don’t we increase public sector pay? That would nudge up private sector pay as well, and people won’t be left in such dire circumstances not being able to buy the things they desperately need.

A: First of all, we don’t want to help public sector workers. The worse things get for the public sector, the more excuse we have for cutting it. Second of all, the last thing we want is pressure on the private sector to pay the low earners more. For heaven’s sake, our main donors back us because we’re always poised to help them enrich themselves while keeping their workers’ pay as low as they can get away with.

Q: I probably should just keep going on about tax cuts and not get into any real discussion about our policies?

A: You’ve got it.

Pluralism, Not Relativism

Many people rightly support pluralism, but without due care quite a few have ended up promoting relativism.

And is that bad? Consider this.

Pluralism means that we accept there are different ways to explore problems, experience diverse forms of living, try out options in response to changing circumstances.

Relativism means that any solution put forward, every way we might treat one another, and whatever proposal offered to deal with the issues we face, is as equally valid as any other.

Pluralists believe we cannot dogmatically declare there is only one unquestionable source of information or a single set of customs by which everyone must live their lives.  We need to explore and experiment, criticise and compare, and see what we can learn from the results of diverse pursuits in science, culture, and politics.

Relativists, on the other hand, are adamant that regardless of what have been found, there is nothing to choose between different responses to questions about causal relations, moral requirements, or policy efficacy. However incompatible they are to each other, contrary to the available evidence, or inherently incoherent, every view is correct in its own right.

While pluralism enables people to follow diverse paths – provided they do not harm others – relativism leads us to the dubious position of standing back from criticising, let alone preventing, any behaviour even though it is damaging other people’s lives.  The problem here is that flawed reasoning can take us from embracing all harmless ways to seek answers in life, to passing no judgement on anything regardless of the harm it is causing.

For example, we should test out different scientific hypotheses rather than simply claim we somehow know which is correct; we should let people follow diverse religious practices to connect with their sense of the divine; and we should be open-minded in considering the merits of a variety of policies to improve community relations. However, it makes no sense to pretend that a hypothesis which has failed every test is as valid as one which has been confirmed by nearly all experiments; a practice that calls for taking others’ lives cannot be tolerated in the name of religious freedom; and any policy involving the promotion of hatred and violence against vulnerable groups cannot be regarded as a viable option for increasing social harmony.

Some argue that it comes down to the interpretation of the evidence.  But is there to be no differentiation between sound and untenable interpretations? What if someone maintains that what others see as a failed experiment is a case of them being deceived by the devil, or the apparent suffering of a child is actually a sign of ‘god’ welcoming the child into heaven.  What this tells us is that we must have objective means to assess what we experience.  We must openly test and cross-check our respective records and observations, and arrive at conclusions that stand up to shared scrutiny.  If any experience can just be interpreted in any way that someone wants to, and that is declared valid beyond all criticism, then we would be at the end of all possible discussion.

The ‘Strongmen’ Delusion

There was a time in the 1990s when, following the end of Soviet rule and the South African apartheid regime, there was widespread hope that the authoritarianism personified by the likes of Hitler and Stalin had become a thing of the past.  But that optimism proved short-lived.

In the West, the Watergate experience of holding US President Nixon to account for breaking the law has given way to Republicans backing Trump in undermining the electoral system and instigating the storming of the Capitol. In the East, China’s decision to avoid a repeat of Mao by sharing out the top power positions was nullified by the Communist Party’s acceptance of Xi Jinping’s moves to concentrate power in himself. In Russia, Gorbachev’s attempts to move towards open democratic rule have been firmly reversed by Putin. The collapse of dictatorships in many other parts of the world during the 1990s has been succeeded by a return to power of numerous right-wing authoritarians.

Many indicators point to a resurgence of ‘Strongmen’ politics. A survey in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential elections found that over a third of voters (Democrats as well as Republicans) said that “being a strong leader was the most important quality when picking a president” – doubled the level for the 2012 elections (Easley, 2016). A study by the Hansard Society reported that over half of the British voters questioned wanted "a strong leader willing to break the rules," with 42% of them going so far as to believe that “many of the country's problems could be dealt with more effectively if the government didn't have to worry so much about votes in Parliament” (John, 2019). Significant electoral gains by authoritarian nationalist politicians in Europe, and victories for the likes of Modi, Duterte, Bolsonaro, confirm the trend of a global expansion of illiberal political control (Repucci & Slipowitz, 2022).

Is this trend irreversible? One thing we must remember is that authoritarians are adept at fooling people, but not for long. Their inherent traits of seeking to dominate others for their personal gains irrespective of the harm to others are inevitably exposed. They all divert vast sums of public money to benefit themselves, use state security to intimidate opposition, prefer to keep a small clique of wealthy elite on side while ignoring the plight of the masses, waste public funds on vanity projects, stir up animosity against vulnerable scapegoats, undermine judicial independence, and subvert electoral arrangements to suit their own ambitions.  After they have won power, their callousness and incompetence invariably increase public suffering.  The problem is that after a few decades, later generations forget what happened before, and too many fall for the lies and pseudo-patriotism again.

To halt the spread of authoritarianism, we must constantly remind people of its false promises and calamitous consequences. Furthermore, we should recognise that strong leadership is important when people need assurance that effective actions would be taken, and it ought to be provided in a form that legitimately inspires confidence, rather than through the rhetorical trickery offered by the authoritarian ‘strongmen’ type.

Researchers from London Business School (Hemant Kakkar and Niro Sivanathan) examined the preferences of 140,000 people in 69 countries over the last two decades, and found that loss of job security and increasing economic hardships tend to lead more people to seek out leaders who give the impression that they would do whatever it takes to get things done (Ferris, 2018). With economic problems worsening, it must not be left to bullish charlatans to present themselves as the only ‘strong’ leaders around.  Progressive politicians have to step up and show the public their passion, determination, and focus in getting everyone to a better tomorrow.

After all, the greatest political leaders who have delivered substantial and lasting improvements to people’s lives in the most challenging of times – think of F. D. Roosevelt, Clement Attlee – are far from meek and hesitant. Others threw the wildest accusations against them, denounced them relentlessly, but they were bold in their vision, and formidable in driving through the necessary changes. The strength they showed is the real strength we now need.

--

References:

Easley, Cameron (2016) ‘Voters Want a Strong Leader More Than Anything Else, Exit Poll Shows’, Morning Consult (November 8) . https://morningconsult.com/2016/11/08/voters-want-strong-leader-anything-else-exit-poll-shows/

Ferris, Robert (2018) ‘Why voters might be choosing dominant, authoritarian leaders around the world’, CNBC (June 12) . https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/why-voters-might-be-choosing-dominant-authoritarian-leaders-around-the-world.html

John, Tara (2019) ‘More than half of UK voters want 'strong, rule-breaking' leader, says survey’, CNN (April 8) . https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/08/uk/hansard-strong-leader-brexit-poll-gbr-intl/index.html

Repucci, S. and Slipowitz, A. (2022) ‘The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule’, Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule

Politics & the Need for Belonging

Progressives tend to have a common frustration – policies which on any objective analysis would improve people’s quality of life end up time and time again being sidelined because more voters give their support to politicians who reject those policies. Worst of all, what those anti-progressive politicians offer instead are actions that would cause greater harm and suffering for most people.

Repeatedly we see charlatans elected on the basis of their rhetoric about helping people take back control, regain their freedom, become great again – when in practice they invariably prioritise the use of legislative power and public resources to help corporate collaborators, and undermine services for the common good and cut support for those in need.

Right-leaning media and manipulation of social media play their part in political deception, but the deeper question is why large number of people are so susceptible to such lies.

At the heart of the matter is the need for belonging.

We all want to belong to something larger than ourselves – a set of mutually supportive relationships with family and friends; a group with shared interests, expertise, concerns; or a set of connections derived from common customs, beliefs, nationality. When people find themselves cut off from these, they tend to become more driven than ever to find something else that would include them as “one of their own”.

Since the 1980s, the rise of market individualism – encapsulated by phrases such as “there is no such thing as society” and “greed is good” – has led to large scale disruption of social connections. Actively supported by Thatcher, Reagan and other champions of the New Right, profiteering became the overriding force in takeovers, asset stripping, mass redundancies, with worker unions drastically weakened, and public infrastructure for collective protection privatised or dismantled.

Hit by rapid changes and constant economic uncertainties, more and more families came under mounting strain, schools were turned into training centres for corporate fodder, the workplace seized to be a source of social bonds, and communities were shattered by corporate decisions which served owners who lived far away with no concern for the socio-economic devastation they left behind.

Over the last few decades, as increasing number of people yearn to find substitutes for the connections that have been lost, the New Right has taken their celebration of egoism to the next level – now their mantra is Don’t let anyone get in your way of getting what you want, namely, the GOOD OLD DAYS. The ‘good old days’, it turns out, means a time when every man (yes, man) is free to do whatever it takes to pursue HIS dream, without any government getting in his way with taxes, immigrants taking away his livelihood, unions obstructing his employment choices, women demanding their rights, or ‘deviants’ trampling all over sacred traditions.

This ‘Good Old Days’ shtick – in its MAGA, Brexit, or other guises – has proven to be extremely attractive for a lot of people, making them feel that for all the important things they have lost, they have gained the precious status of belonging to a group who will stand together for a return to the time when a man can freely blame and insult whomever he wants.

The only way to help people get out of this fog of lies and misdirection, is to show them that there is something genuinely meaningful and valuable that they can be a part of – a community wherein they will be respected as they respect others, given a helping hand if they need one as they are ready to lend a hand to those in need, and able to attain a far better quality of life for themselves and their families than if people were left to the mercy of powerful exploiters.

Who Helps Wins

Progressive politicians keep bemoaning the challenges they face. The Right get more money to generate publicity, have no compunction with pumping out fake news, are devious with deploying misleading claims, and can always count on media moguls happy to divert public frustration towards a multitude of scapegoats. In response, progressives struggle to come up with strategies, slogans, narratives, that would win over the electorate.

But what people want is real help with their problems. They are not asking for a political vision to change their world. They are not waiting for a new narrative to reframe public debates. They are certainly not pondering as to which party can come up with a more convincing strategy. They just want help with what is making their lives difficult, and they are desperate to find out if someone will offer it.

In the US, the Democrats are dreading they will lose control of Congress because, among other things, they have not managed to pass the Build Back Better plan with its promise of nearly $2 trillion social spending. In the UK, Labour’s pinning its hope on the Tories imploding over Partygate while its own offer is still barely registered with the public. In France, the Left were not even able to mount a challenge to Macron in the presidential run-off when that was taken up by the far-right instead.

Again and again, progressives find themselves stuck in the shadow, hardly seen as the political force dedicated to solving problems inclusively and democratically, but mostly caricaturised as figures obsessed with issues tangential to people’s everyday concerns. What they must do is focus on giving people the help they really want – help with the setting up of thriving enterprise, obtaining decent jobs, meeting the basic needs for food and energy, securing an affordable home, having access to good healthcare, living in friendly and stable communities, and being well protected from bigotry and criminal behaviour.

Progressive groups should form social enterprise to offer goods and services at the lowest possible prices, organise community support networks to provide for those caught in poverty, and develop advisory and advocacy service to help people get what they need from private and public bodies (e.g., jobs, housing, utilities), especially if any of these prove to be unresponsive or discriminatory. Fund raising, income generation, and volunteer support would be channelled to sustain and where appropriate, expand these provisions.

Instead of asking for donations to run election campaigns which connect with people only once every so many years, this help-focused approach would create a day-to-day relationship for progressives and the communities they work with. As part of this process, they can readily explain that things can improve further provided key obstacles are removed through particular local and central government actions, and these will happen if the people themselves back the progressives in the elections to come.

There is no mystery to how community-based enterprise and support network can be successfully developed.  The book, Tomorrow’s Communities, is full of evidence and examples regarding how it can be done. The challenge is to integrate that into progressive grassroot politics. Make the offer of help an everyday experience for all who seek it.

Who helps wins.

The Case for Communitarian Democracy

It is not uncommon to hear phrases such as ‘we must defend democracy’, ‘that is undemocratic’, or ‘democracy is not good enough’, but how often are people clear about what they mean by ‘democracy’?

‘Democracy’ means many things – a multi-party electoral system; majority rule; power sharing amongst all citizens; accountable government; participatory decision-making; equality of political status; one person, one vote; every vote carrying the same electoral weight.  When some want to promote democracy, and others lament its shortcomings, they might not so much be contradicting each other as talking about quite different forms of governance.

What is distinctive about communitarian democracy is that it addresses the vulnerabilities of relatively superficial forms of electoral politics, and formulates requirements which would maximise the equal and deliberative input of all members of society in shaping how they are governed.

It has three main components, and each of these has three conditions, giving a total of nine requirements to meet to secure effective democratic governance:

[A] TOGETHERNESS: citizens should be connected through a sense of mutual responsibility; they need to recognise each other as interdependent members of society with common concerns.

[1] Shared Mission:

Solidarity should be cultivated by facilitating people in developing a practical understanding of what they seek together – such as the pursuit of security, the improvement of living conditions, or other objectives that matter to everyone.

[2] Mutual Respect:

There can be little trust in any collective decision-making arrangements if certain groups and individuals are discriminated against.  Mutual respect must be taught and safeguarded against exclusionary tactics such as targeted insult and intimidation, or the promotion of racial or cultural divisiveness.

[3] Coherent Membership:

Responsive governance needs those under its jurisdiction to understand and appreciate why they benefit from that common jurisdiction.  Citizenship should be grounded on the awareness of their rights and responsibilities, and the conditions for bringing in new members as well as the criteria for suspending membership terms.

[B] OBJECTIVITY:citizens should be able to reason and judge through cooperative enquiry; their deliberations must be protected by safeguards for impartiality and enforcement against deception.

[4] Collaborative Learning:

To steer clear of both the autocracy imposed by some know-it-all and the anarchy of perpetual disputes, we need cultural and organisational arrangements to advance extensive collaborative learning to build a shared and dependable knowledge base.

[5] Critical Re-examination:

A system of critical re-examination, that will review ideas in the light of the evidence and cogent arguments, is needed to minimise the likelihood of people stepping back from reasoned deliberations with others, or holding their own views as unquestionable for all time.

[6] Responsible Communication:

Reliable governance calls for safeguards against irresponsible communication which might otherwise undermine objective deliberations and cast a shadow over the prospect of citizens attaining a shared understanding of what they should do as a group.

[C] POWER BALANCE:collective decisions should be made on the basis of citizen participation; arrangements and reforms are needed to enable citizens to have an equal say in shaping public policies.

[7] Participatory Decision-Making:

Inclusive governance requires the adoption of tried and tested participatory practices that make it possible for citizens to engage deliberatively in a wider range of pubic decisions, and give everyone a fair share of influence so that none may come to dominate others.

[8] Civic Parity:

There should be no unbridgeable gulf between the influence different groups of citizens can bring to bear on the rules and practices that affect them all, and this necessitates limits on inequalities in wealth, political connections, and social status.

[9] Public Accountability: 

Collective self-governance requires a distribution of power that will enable any given group to hold to account anyone in that group whose actions impact on the lives of others. This needs to be sustained by an effective system of public accountability.

Instead of defending or denigrating ‘democracy’ when it merely refers to some superficial form of electoral system, we should focus our energy on developing the kind of governance that we really need as a society – that of communitarian democracy.

--

For a detailed exposition of communitarian democracy, see Time to Save Democracy: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/time-to-save-democracy