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