Learning from Mozi: the first communitarian

Confucius’ teachings on loyalty, family, and customs have been regarded by many as instructive for securing strong community life. However, it is the critical appraisal of Confucian ideas by the outstanding thinker, Mozi, that offers us the most important communitarian lessons in social and political action.

Mozi was born soon after Confucius’ death, and became one of the most influential teachers in China during the fifth century BC [Note 1]. Like Confucius, he was greatly concerned with society falling apart through people acting disrespectfully an aggressively against others. For Confucius, the root cause of the problem was that people were not following the customary roles and rites that had been laid down. He famously urged everyone to remember that children should obey their parents, wives should obey their husbands, subordinates should obey their superiors, and subjects should obey their rulers. In return, parents, husbands, those with superior ranks and status, and rulers, should look after those who submit to them. For Mozi, Confucian obedience is all one-way and if one is not well treated in return, one is still expected to submit. This blind trust in the wisdom and kindness of those with customary power is simply not acceptable.

What Mozi calls for instead is 兼愛 – often translated as ‘universal love’ but more aptly rendered as ‘mutual concern’. If we are mindful of the wellbeing of others, but others are not concerned about us, we could be at a disadvantage in life. If nobody cares about anyone else, the ensuing neglect and conflicts would be damaging for everyone. The only sensible approach is to require everyone to commit to being concerned with the wellbeing of everyone else. Obviously this does not mean that one should try to personally look after thousands, or even millions, of other people. What is needed is a combination of behavioural rules to avoid the inflicting of harm, and the setting up and supporting of institutional arrangements so that one will get help if one needs it AND so will others if they need help.

Power is to be accordingly vested in people not on the basis of customs, but on the basis of who can best demonstrate their reliability in setting up and overseeing these rules and institutions. Mozi was the first philosopher, not just in China but across the world, to set out a comprehensive framework for testing the acceptability of any proposal (regarding rules, institutions, policies, etc). This has three elements:

First of all, we have the test of past experience: What do records of previous events or initiatives tell us? Did people find all the old customs and practices as helpful as some traditionalists today are making out? What was the actual impact? What lessons were passed down?

Secondly, there is the test of current testimony: What happens when something is tried out? Do people find it working as well as its proponents have suggested, or have problems been uncovered? How does it compare with other options that are being tested?

Lastly, the test of future discovery: What new evidence may we encounter? Are there unforeseen effects that come to be noticed and reported? Do people beyond the initial few have similar experiences or have they been affected in different ways? Are there further consequences to emerge down the line?

Mozi was once challenged by a princeling who dismissed his views as too idealistic to share with the public. Mozi replied by pointing out that the princeling could (a) advocate the rejection of mutual concern, and become known as someone who cannot be trusted to reciprocate the concern of others; (b) also advocate mutual concern in public but indulge in self-centred practices, and have to spend his life avoid being found out as a detestable hypocrite; or (c) stay quiet, and be known as someone with nothing to say about moral matters. 

Mozi himself dedicated his life to teaching and practising the philosophy of mutual concern, to build communities sustained by solidarity and cooperation. Confucius has reputation on his side. But it is Mozi that we should all be learning from.

--

Note 1: Mozi - 墨子 in Chinese – (also transliterated as ‘Mo Tzu’ or ‘Mo Tze’) was thought to have lived around 470s-390s BC, with most current estimates opting for 470-391 BC, making him an exact contemporary of Socrates (470-391 BC).

Democracy SOS

For democracy to function, it must enable citizens to participate meaningfully in shaping their own governance. But for too long, there has been inadequate support or safeguards to connect the public to the making of public policies. People have been hindered by the lack of reliable information, and marginalised by those with far greater financial resources. The electoral system is too easily subverted by those who make lying and incitement their core strategy.

To save democracy from manipulative authoritarians, urgent action needs to be taken. Experts have put forward a range of proposals on what should be done. These are brought together in Democracy SOS, which is being presented to politicians and democratic advocates in the UK as a comprehensive guide to the key reforms. A summary of the 8-point action plan for government bodies to implement is set out below.

[1] Democracy & Learning 

Ignorance is not bliss. People need to know how democracy is meant to work if democracy is going to work. Better support should be given to: citizenship education in schools; university involvement in raising public understanding of political and public policy issues; adult education in democracy and active citizenship; training for politicians and public officials in democratic engagement; and courses on democratic skills run by voluntary and community groups.

[2] Democracy & Information

Disinformation subverts public understanding. People surrounded by lies and distortions cannot appraise policy options reliably. Effective safeguards should be put in place to: restrain the spread of false and unfounded information via online platforms, print and broadcast media; protect public service broadcasters; secure full transparency for the funding of those issuing research findings; and support independent fact-checking and accreditation of reporters.

[3] Democracy & Voting

Every vote ought to count. But in practice many people are held back from or put off voting by obstacles in the system. Action should be taken to: adopt automatic voter registration; replace first-past-the-post by a form of proportional representational system; remove voter photo ID requirements; address issues with boundary reviews; and strengthen the independence and powers of the Electoral Commission.

[4] Democracy & Deliberative Engagement

Division can only be bridged by dialogue. People identify common interests when they are able to share their ideas and concerns together. Investment should be provided to: expand community development capacity in public service; strengthen local government’s role in bringing communities together; support community organising; and increase the use of deliberative engagement techniques.

[5] Democracy & Subsidiarity

Remote decision-makers alienate communities. People want power to be exercised as close and responsive to them as possible. Commitments should be made to: devolve more real powers to all sub-national levels; raise awareness of what those with devolved powers do; strengthen local and neighbourhood democracy; support the voluntary and community sector’s democratic role; and improve public understanding of transnational governance.

[6] Democracy & Economic Inequalities

Disparity in wealth undercuts civic equality. People’s democratic influence diminishes when faced with the power of rich individuals and corporations. Reforms should be introduced to: curtail money’s impact on political decisions; prioritise the needs of deprived areas; tackle tax evasion and loopholes; require those with the most to pay more for the public good; limit the wealthy buying up media control; and establish a universal basic income.

[7] Democracy & Accountability

Those with authority must be answerable to the public. People cannot have confidence in those holding public office who can seemingly act with impunity. Changes should be brought in to: penalise deceptive communications; widen the application of recall procedures; provide a democratic basis for the second chamber; strengthen the independence and powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office; and enhance the accountability for public procurement.

[8] Democracy & Civil Rights

No one can be allowed to override our basic rights. People should respect majority decisions, but only if no one can be arbitrarily harmed or silenced. Protection should be enhanced by: removing any law that may stop people criticising state policies peacefully; curtailing attempts to incite hate and anger against minorities; securing commitment to the rule of law; guaranteeing basic human rights for all; and funding independent non-profit providers of legal advice.

--

The above extract is taken from Democracy SOS, published by Citizen Network in association with Unlock Democracy and Compass – © Henry Tam 2025.

For the full text, go to Citizen Network: https://citizen-network.org/library/democracy-sos.html (Democracy SOS brings together proposals relating to the political situation in the UK. Its eight core principles, however, can be applied to democratic development in other countries).

Perceived-Identity Prejudice

There are heated debates about whether or not what some people regard as ‘racism’ is really racism. But why don’t we focus more on what we want to prevent.

Whenever people come across someone with a ‘foreign sounding’ name, certain skin-tone, a non-native accent, an attachment to different customs – and they project an identity with negative features onto that person, we have a objectionable case of perceived-identity prejudice.

A difficulty with the term ‘racism’ is that it carries the connotation that it is essentially about a ‘race’-related problem. But there are no distinct races – no genetic factors that can differentiate any of the so-called ‘racial groups’ from others. Differences such as blood types, physical strengths, intelligence levels are found within each ‘group’ but not across them. The prejudicial distrust, dislike, or hatred even, that is at the heart of racism (as commonly understood) is not in fact connected with any biologically meaningful notion of ‘race’, but with perceived identities which may or may not include skin tones or facial structures.

Some individuals think that the prejudice against certain type of people is worse/more contemptible than prejudice against other types of people. For example, some have suggested that because of things such as past segregation in the US and recurring incidents of abusive treatment of Black people in the criminal justice system, prejudice against Black people is the most heinous form of racism. Others have pointed to the Holocaust and maintained that antisemitism is the most evil form of prejudice. The vile experiences endured by countless innocent Muslims following the 9/11 terrorist attack testify to the spread and intensity of Islamophobia. And many contemporary equality campaigners would point out that across Europe today Gypsies and Travellers suffer hateful discrimination to an extent not tolerated in relation to any other group of people. 

But should there even be a hierarchy of perceived identity prejudice (with one ranking as the worst of all time, and some dismissed as ‘not really racism’)? Prejudiced attitudes can manifest themselves in different ways, by different people, at different times. One manifestation at a historical moment may rightly be treated as unforgivably cruel. But that does not mean any other manifestation in connection with any group with a different perceived identity must be less serious. 

If we want to track and counter perceived identity prejudice in whatever form it manifests itself, and calibrate our response appropriately in relation to the actual threat, we need to focus on the likely perpetrators and the harm they are poised to inflict.

References to historical events are important reminders of how prejudices can arise and how destructive they can be. But while single events may be more dramatic to recount, the lessons are more powerfully conveyed when we look at issues over time – the treatment of Gypsies, Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, etc., over centuries. 

We also need a wide perspective so we don’t end up forming prejudiced views of the nature of prejudice. At its roots, perceived-identity prejudice is rarely a black or white issue. For example, there are many inter-tribal prejudices across Africa and Asia that fuelled distrust and conflicts; nasty discrimination can be found against people with perceived identities (associated with languages, religions, customs, but not with any ‘racial’ characteristics) in the East as much as the West; and the prejudice-infused atrocities committed by invading armies (the English against the people of Ireland in the 17^th century; Japanese soldiers against Chinese civilians in the 1930s/40s; Serbian forces against Bosnians in the 1990s; and many others). There isn’t one form of racist prejudice that should get the utmost attention for all time. There are many sources of unjustifiable distrust and hate, and we need to tackle them in whatever form they surface here and now.

National Insurance Plus: a policy for jobs

There are two narratives on jobs doing the rounds. One makes some long-term sense but has little appeal for here and now. The other gives false hope to many and risks damaging consequences down the line. In recent decades, people haunted by job insecurity and pay inadequacy have been increasingly desperate for answers, and many elections have been won by ‘populists’ who promise quick fixes which are mostly counter-productive. But will asking people to wait patiently for grand improvements to come help to win their electoral support?

Let us look at the ‘Invest in the Future’ narrative, which basically runs like this: the economy is changing fast as a result of technological, environmental, and geopolitical factors. Some jobs will disappear. Some will not pay so well anymore. But the government will lead the way in getting investment into high-potential sectors which will offer plenty of quality, sustainable, and well-paid jobs in areas such as renewable energy, computer technology, life sciences, healthcare, financial services, construction, creative industries, and advanced manufacturing (involving robotics). These sectors will grow and flourish, and with them, good jobs will follow. But when will all this happen? Who will be suitable to get these jobs? Could it be that one waits for years only to find that one is not qualified for any of them?

The other narrative brushes all this aside. Its core ‘Blame Scapegoats’ messages are: people will have many job opportunities to explore once the obstacles are removed – and what are these obstacles? Immigrants who should not be here to take your jobs; environmental (‘net zero’) legislation that ends so many jobs; ‘red tape’ and unnecessary standards that hold back job creation; ‘high’ levels of benefits that make it difficult for employers to offer jobs with attractive enough pay. In short, get rid of scapegoats and basic support for people to survive hard times, and the jobs will come (with barely subsistent pay, dreadful working conditions, harmful impact on society, or demanding requirements that employers have so far needed to look abroad to find people to meet).

If people are not to be put off by the ‘Invest in the Future’ narrative, or get taken in by the ‘Blame Scapegoats’ snake-oil pitch, something else is needed. And that could be National Insurance Plus, a scheme to give every worker and anyone who joins a recognised paid training programme a NI+membership that entitles them to a lifetime support in taking up and transitioning between jobs.  

NI+ works as an expanded version of national insurance scheme, with contributions from workers and employers, and support provided in return in the form of advice on job opportunities and skills development, arrangements to take on work of value to the community when there is no commercial job offer available, guidance and training for likely jobs that are suitable, and payment to cover living costs until another job has been secured.

NI+ does not have to wait for years for its impact to be felt. It can be set up straightaway. It does not divide people into those struggling with their jobs and those who get benefits for not working. It is about people insuring themselves against the vicissitudes of working life. Variations on the requirements for carrying out work of community value can be set in relation to how much/little paid work one has previously done. The training can be tailor-made in light of the sectors receiving the investment for future expansion. Above all, NI+ gives everyone a meaningful guarantee that they will, from this moment on, have a dependable working life.

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

American Nero

Many US Democrats and political leaders across the world (with the exception of Putin and his acolytes) are going through the five stages of grief.

First up, we have denial. Let’s show deference to ‘Mr. President’. This is not the ruthless, callous authoritarian we have been warned about. Just another politically savvy person who has won the top job. It’ll be OK.

Quickly, the second stage kicks in. Executive orders multiply like aphids, devouring all the good and decent practices that had been in place. Valiant heroes and dedicated public servants removed without cause. Harmful policies at home, vicious threats (against US allies) abroad. Anger erupts.

Next to come is the desire to bargain one’s way out of this madness. Perhaps concessions will help. Vote with him, and not against him, and maybe, just maybe, he would not be as horrible as so many dread. Give in to him, he only wants to strike a deal. 

The fourth stage arrives with the depressive realisation that like Nero, Caligula, Commodus, and all the other vicious dictators that followed in their deranged footsteps, the man has not the heart to feel the pain he causes others, not the brain to understand the havoc he wreaks, and not the slightest sense that he should turn to the counsel of decent minds. 

Finally, the doors of ‘Acceptance’. On the right side the door opens to acceptance of the craven new world. “Cry MAGA, and let slip the dogs of war”. Chaos and pain shall reign. Submit to the emperor. Or take the door on the left, and accept that resistance is the only way forward. Bowing down to power-hungry ‘Leaders’ have never saved any country. Look at the tragic excesses unleashed by ruthless tyrants when their powers went unchecked (and it was J. D. Vance who famously likened Trump to Hitler). Rally every true patriot to voice their opposition, vote out those who support him, back the courts against his law-breaking defiance, and demand the reinstatement of funding for vulnerable people and vital scientific research.

22.7% of the adult population in the US voted in 2024 for what they thought would be their MAGA hero. It’s now clear they have landed their country and the rest of the world with an American Nero.

Roman senators kept giving grounds to the Caesars until they were left powerless and could do little but prostrate for mercy before their supreme ruler. US senators and representatives must act before their republic is also forever lost.

Interview with a Scapegoat-Hunter

Q: You’re a much sought-after advisor in certain political circles. What is it you offer?

A: There are two types of politician. There are the naïve ones who want to help people, even if it means going against the rich and powerful. I don’t have time for them. Then there are those who recognise they need to stand with the rich and powerful, and the way to do that is win public office by attacking vulnerable scapegoats. That’s where I come in.

Q: Tell me if I’ve got this right. Politicians who ally themselves with the rich and powerful look to you for advice on how to get the wider public to support them to go after scapegoats you identify, and deflect people from seeing the actual harm and exploitation caused by the rich and powerful.

A: That’s a rather crude way of putting it. It’s actually a fine art.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Well, look at the real problems. If people realise it’s powerful and irresponsible corporations that’s behind them, you can imagine how they’d be clamouring for actions to deal with them. So you need to change the way they see things. Tell them the increasing weather extremes have nothing to do with fossil fuels, but are caused by nutters pushing crazy green policies. Warn them that more people are killed by guns because ‘liberals’ make it too difficult for people to buy guns to protect themselves. Explain to them that it is not gambling, sugary food, nicotine, or alcohol that bring about harm and addiction, but the deplorable character of addicts who have no one to blame but themselves. Remind them that unemployment is only a problem because the ‘socialists’ encourage people to be lazy and rely on welfare.

Q: Why would anyone believe you despite all the evidence to the contrary?

A: You’ve got to know which button to push.

Q: Care to explain that?

A: When people are angry, they need to channel that anger somewhere. Well-meaning politicians present facts politely – and drearily – and few listen to them. Whereas I put on my best outraged face, and rail at immigrants, refugees, feminists, anyone speaking up for ethnic minorities or human rights, and anything to do with health & safety or has ‘Europe’ in its name.  You see, these are easy targets. We’ve got most of the media, countless troll factories, all the not so well-meaning politicians, lined up to pump out scare stories about them – immigrants are taking all the jobs, refugees are getting fancy accommodation, everyone on benefit is a cheat … And say that often enough, people repeat it to their mates as though it’s the gospel truth.

Q: How does that help anyone?

A: You have no idea. Once people have scapegoats they can blame and hate, you can give them a lot of satisfaction just by hurting stigmatised groups – make them suffer, deport them if you can, let them starve and get no help when they are sick, make them feel despised and isolated, vilify them at every opportunity. At the same time, once consumed with rage and disaffection, they won’t listen to facts or expert analyses about the real causes of the social, economic, or environmental problems facing them. My rich and powerful clients don’t have to worry about meddlesome politicians stepping in to deal with their irresponsible and harmful activities. It’s a win-win. 

Q: Win-win for the rich and powerful who are basically ruining others’ lives.

A: Others’ lives don’t matter. That, incidentally, is our mission statement.

Meet the Privatisers – and their 5-point agenda

Sports fans rant about referees over any decision that goes against their team, but they know without referees there could be no sports matches at all. Beyond individual matches, leagues and competitions involving multiple teams need a governing body to resolve disputes, provide collective support, and share out resources. Similarly, for societies in general to function fairly and effectively, governments must be given a decisive role. 

There are too many challenges and opportunities that require us to work together with agreed rules. Ignoring each other, or falling out over disagreements, would drag everyone down. So why do the privatisers keep trying to subdue state institutions in favour of private powers? Why do they relentlessly attack public bodies and pretend things will inevitably be better in private hands? The answer lies in these five aims of theirs:

[1] Removing Restraints from Irresponsible Private Actions

Privatisers want to be able to do as they please – cheat consumers, mistreat their workers, bully their tenants, sell unsafe goods, pollute the environment – and they detest regulations that would restrain their irresponsibility. Hence the endless calls for deregulation and attacks on essential rules as cumbersome ‘red tape’.

[2] Diminishing the Public Safety Net

Privatisers know that without an effective public safety net against the threats of sickness, homelessness, and poverty, they could more easily pressure people into accepting their exploitative demands. By attacking ‘dependency’ on public support, they seek to increase people’s actual dependency on the whims and mercy of the rich and powerful.

[3] Increasing Wealth & Power Inequalities

Privatisers favour a system which would ensure the hard work of the vast majority of people in society produces rewards that could be overwhelmingly siphoned towards the tiny minority of plutocrats. Cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor are designed to widen power inequalities, so the former can more readily dismiss the plight of the latter.

[4] Diverting Public Resources for Private Gains

Privatisers object to public resources being used for the public good when these can be transferred for making private gains for profiteers. By handing over public resources to the private sector in the form of commercial contracts or asset transfers, they can thereafter be managed to benefit a rich minority, at lower quality and accessibility, and with no democratic accountability.

[5] Undermining the Ethos of Public Service

Privatisers never tire of pointing to flaws and problems in the public sector, deliberately ignoring the fact that these are rare compared with the harm and deception routinely perpetrated in the private sector. They want to demoralise public servants, drive them away, so that public service is weakened and less able to help people poorly treated by the private sector.

Privatisers will always try to exploit public dissatisfaction with this or that aspect of their government, and stir it into a rejection of democratic governance altogether. It is not because they remotely care about other people, far from it, all they want is to deceive enough people to get them the power they need to impose their self-serving agenda on society.

Can Anybody Help: civics revisited

For many people, words like ‘politics’, ‘democracy’, ‘government’, ‘citizenship’, either strike them as boring, or worse, have negative connotations of being something that gets in the way of individuals living their lives without outside interference.

What they don’t recognise is that how they get to live their lives depends critically on the state of democracy and how they are governed. But they are not likely to know much about that when it is almost the social norm to avoid having informed conversations about such matters. Friends worry about antagonising each other. Teachers feel safer to keep silent rather than risk being accused of showing bias. Even politicians jump at the chance of saying ‘let’s keep politics out of this’ as though the subject is best brushed aside.

In reality – and here the facts speak for themselves – human beings are vulnerable to so many threats and problems as isolated individuals. Alone, we are more likely to succumb to disease, injuries, attacks, abuse, oppression, natural disasters, and other predicament. Throughout history, the plea ‘Can Anybody Help’ has only been answered reliably when there are adequate collective arrangements in place to give a satisfactory response. To understand what would constitute ‘adequate collective arrangements’, we need to learn about politics, democracy, and matters of government.

In the absence of civics education, we are left with simplistic regurgitation of dangerous ideas. We have the advocacy for authoritarian, ‘strongmen’ politics – with diverse lineages coming down from Hobbesian absolutists, Bonapartists, fascists, Stalinists, converging towards contemporary right-wing ‘populists’ who seek to wield unrestrained power to do as they please. And we have the propagation of anarchistic, libertarian politics – echoing the demands of the likes of Mandeville, Godwin, Spencer, Rand, to leave individuals to their own devices without any government stepping in.

It is hardly surprising that an increasing number of people, old and young, are drawn to unscrupulous politicians who insist they could do so much better for their country if they were not hindered by accountability procedures, safeguards for human rights, and public scrutiny; and that their country would thrive if government would leave it to the private sector to sort out healthcare, education, energy, water, housing, business dealings, etc.

It hardly requires much time to remind people the dire consequences of dictators imposing their ruthless and arbitrary rule on countries they have gained power over; or the terrible effects of leaving key matters to the private sector through privatisation or callous deregulation. 

As educators, we must communicate, explain, and engage as widely as we can so that our fellow citizens can better understand how the threats they cannot deal with on their own needs democratically controlled government institutions to pool resources and devise responses which genuinely help the people concerned.

The hijacking of conventional and social media by manipulators, the brazen attacks on teachers by ideologues and culture warriors, the systematic spreading of lies and false rumours in political campaigns, the undermining of universities by fundamentalist and corporate influences, are all making it critically urgent to counter distortions with facts, analyses, and explanations. Through reports, drama, classroom discussions, historical accounts, and a variety of other tools, we must reach out to those who are worried that they have been forgotten, and show them help is available, but only from those who are committed to serving the people through a strong, democratic government.

Evil is a Character Issue

In polite society, one is expected to refrain from calling anyone evil with the possible exception of Nazi extremists or serial killers. Many people who care neither for honesty nor politeness, however, readily accuse blameless folks of the utmost villainy. 

So, while courteous commentators hold back from exposing the wicked, the wicked go around lambasting the innocent, the compassionate, the rational for being evil. ‘Evil’, immoral manipulators tell us, are the refugees who escape from war zones, scientists who warn us of climate change and infectious diseases, politicians who want to help those in dire need, and anyone who complains about being mistreated because of their gender or ethnicity.

Have words like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ lost all their meaning? Have relativism, nihilism, irrationalism spread so widely that it is no longer possible to make clear moral judgements anymore?

It’s time we remind ourselves that evil is a character issue. Human reflections over centuries have found expressions in folk stories, fairy tales, and classic novels – all highlighting the traits we find praiseworthy: caring for others, standing up for the weak, defying oppressors, willing to explore the facts rather than acting rashly, delighting in the happiness of others; and correspondingly, putting the spotlight on the opposite characteristics that are repugnant and contemptible: being callous about the plight of others, taking advantage of the weak, obsequiously aiding the powerful in quashing the defenceless, deceiving others for personal gains, jumping to dangerous conclusions without any due consideration, seeking to inflict pain on others.

We know what evil is. We recoil from the Wicked Queen whose vanity drives her to have Snow White murdered. We are sickened by Iago whose hatred of the kind and noble Othello leads him to ruthless manipulations that destroy the lives of others. We despise Uriah Heep whose greed fuels his every move to ruin others to make greater gains for himself. We are repelled by Voldemort who cares only to gain power for himself and treats everyone else with disdain.

And we come across such characters in real life. They are the demagogues who will spread devastating lies to advance themselves; the self-righteous bigots who tirelessly goad people into hating those who are neglected and vulnerable; the plutocrats who use every trick in the book to make more money for themselves in ways that are unremittingly harmful to others; the powerful and irresponsible who enjoy getting away with intimidating, insulting, and injuring people who have not got enough resources to fight back.

Such people, with the support of social and mainstream media (which they own or have considerable influence over), will present themselves as ‘good’, models of ‘success’, heroes even. But look closely at their character – how they routinely mistreat other people, how they mock those less fortunate than themselves, how they actively seek to block and reduce help for people in need, how gleeful they respond to the sufferings of innocent people, how dismissive they are about the pain they have casually caused others, how they grovel before the more powerful and sneer contemptuously at the powerless.

It does not matter what office anyone may hold, or how wealthy they are. They are defined by their character. 

See them for what they are.