Advocates for progressive improvement, from the Enlightenment philosophers [1] to later cooperative and communitarian reformists [2], have been perennially challenged on two flanks. Militant radicals mock them for wasting time over a supposedly utopian dream. Cynical reactionaries misrepresent them as the progenitors of dystopian nightmares
In reality, what progressive thinkers have been helping to develop can be expressed in the notion of ‘synetopia’ – a place where people cooperate together on the basis of objective reasoning and mutual respect to work out how to improve their wellbeing as individuals and as a community.
Synetopia is not an idealised place that is founded on the hoped-for kindness of all who dwell within, nor is it an ideological system that is to be imposed unkindly on everyone without exception. It is a model for human interactions that over time has helped to open our eyes to specific societal problems to be overcome, and potential collaboration that can bring about better outcomes for all concerned.
Based on the critical iteration of progressive thinkers from the Enlightenment on, the model can be outlined with reference to nine key proposals that enable any group of people to come together to achieve more than they can on their own. The extent to which these are taken forward in practice serves to indicate how far synetopia is being realised for any given group of people at the local, national or global level. Set out below are the nine proposals, which for mnemonic reason, are listed under headings, each of which begins with a letter that will together with the others spell out ‘SYNETOPIA’:
Shared Mission
All members of the group should have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group should be effectively and visibly organised to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there should be genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none should amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Nimble Membership
There should be a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Educative Collaboration
All member of the group should be enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have lifelong opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the world as well as ideas for change.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group should make sure no claim or assumption is privileged as unquestionable. It should subject all doctrines and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Open Access to Information
There should be open access so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception should be in place, and demands for secrecy must be independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group should enable and encourage all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensure everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power should be monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, must be held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges should be resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
Details of these nine SYNETOPIA proposals can be found amongst the leading progressive writers, and they constitute the core elements of the effective governance of any neighbourhood, business, or national community [3]. There is no need to remain shackled by the false dichotomy of either sceptically abstaining from backing any form of social development or dogmatically throwing one’s lot behind some arbitrary doctrine. History has taught us that there is a practical approach to question the way we live, explore alternatives, and test out improvements through sustained cooperation [4]. It is the path that leads to synetopia.
--
[1] The following books are recommended to attain a better understanding of the Enlightenment and its key proponents:
Blom, Philipp: ‘A Wicked Company: the forgotten radicalism of the European Enlightenment’.
Bronner, Stephen Eric: ‘Reclaiming the Enlightenment’
Commager, Henry Steele: ‘The Empire of Reason: how Europe imagined and America realized the Enlightenment’;
Gay, Peter: ‘The Enlightenment: an interpretation’;
Hampson, Norman: ‘The Enlightenment’;
Israel, Jonathan: ‘Democratic Enlightenment’;
McMahon, Darrin M.: ‘Enemies of the Enlightenment’;
Porter, Roy: ‘Enlightenment: Britain and the creation of the modern world’.
[2] For a background piece on communitarian thinkers, see: ‘Communitarians: an introduction’.
[3] For a more extensive look at the elements of good governance, see: ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’. (For specific advice in relation to peer production and commons economy, see: Michel Bauwens’ ‘The Ten Commandments of Peer Production and Commons Economics’).
[4] For a short history on the struggle to challenge power inequalities and develop more inclusive communities, see ‘Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle’.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Thursday, 15 October 2015
Let’s Come Clean about Nuclear Waste
A relatively small amount of material can generate a vast amount of energy, without polluting the atmosphere or depleting the precious ozone layer. Nuclear fission sounds like the Holy Grail of energy management. No wonder big corporations have stepped in and offered it as the magic solution to everything – from supplying electricity to those who can pay for the privilege, to threatening annihilation against anyone who might end up paying the ultimate penalty.
But it brings in its wake the most dangerous waste – not just in the form of its deadly radioactive by-products which retain their potency to destroy lives for hundreds of thousands of years, but in terms of the resources its production consumes when they can be so much more beneficially utilised elsewhere.
Let us look at a few facts relating to the economics of nuclear power.
Disguised Costs
It is often claimed that safe, renewable energy such as solar powered electricity costs users more than nuclear-power generated electricity. But that is because, instead of comparing the retail costs of both on the same basis (which would reveal solar powered electricity to be cheaper [1]), the retail cost of the former is compared with the wholesale price nuclear plants charge electricity companies. Not only is this a false comparison, the ‘lower’ wholesale cost of nuclear-based electricity masks a huge government subsidy to the nuclear industry.
In the UK alone, the government’s own 2012/13 budget revealed that £2.5bn ($3.8bn) a year was spent on “nuclear legacy” issues (i.e. decommissioning and waste handling). Nuclear companies would charge electricity suppliers a lot more if the government (using taxpayers’ money) does not cover the costs of dealing with their nuclear waste. No such subsidy on a comparable scale is given to solar or wind energy [2].
Plutocratic Deals
While solar and wind energy companies are relatively small, start-ups, the nuclear business is made up of large corporations with the financial muscle to do deals with governments to maximise their own profits. When plutocratic parties are in power, no matter if they are in the east or west, they align themselves with the agenda of wealthy corporations. The latest example can be seen with the UK Government asking for China’s help to finance the £24.5bn ($38bn) Hinkley nuclear plant project, and in return, China will be given the opportunity to construct another nuclear plant at Bradwell in Essex, which will be owned by Chinese companies. To assist Chinese investors, the UK Government will give a £2bn ($3.07bn) loan guarantee for the Hinkley project. The profit will go to wealthy corporations based abroad, and the harmful nuclear waste will be left in Britain.
Costly Accidents Do Happen
The nuclear business model is dependent on people forgetting that when nuclear power plant accidents happen, they can be devastating, and such accidents do happen. Between 1952 and 2009 there were at least 99 nuclear power plant accidents (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 [£32,555] of property damage) around the world. The total property damage caused by these accidents amounted to $20.5bn (£13.4bn). The most notorious of these was of course Chernobyl (1986), where in Belarus alone, incidence of congenital defects rose by 40% within six years of the accident. Even the lowest estimate of cancer related deaths caused by Chernobyl put the number at 27,000 worldwide.
After Chernobyl, lessons were supposed to have been learnt, and the mistakes of a Soviet-era operation would allegedly not be found in developed democracies around the world. Then came Fukushima in 2011. While the death toll from radiation exposure will rise from the 1,232 reached in 2014, the bill for radiation clean up and compensation for injuries has been estimated at $105bn (£68bn).
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Nuclear Weapons
Finally, it may be argued that even though the civil use of nuclear power generates too much harmful waste and dangerous accidents, its military use is vital. Without disputing the principle that the possession of nuclear weapons by at least one country necessitates their acquisition by a number of other countries to maintain a balance of power, there is still the issue of strategic coherence.
The sole objective of nuclear weapons has always been to deter an enemy invasion. And while there are already more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire planet’s population, more is still being spent on them. A 2011 report estimated that the nine ‘nuke’ countries spent $100bn (£65bn) in a single year on developing and maintaining their nuclear weapons. Yet far from giving them sufficient security, they spent a further 10 times more (i.e., $1trillion) on their non-nuclear military capability.
It has reached a point where it is clear that the ever-expanding purchase of nuclear weaponry may not meet either economic or military objectives. In the UK, the debate about replacing Trident submarines with nuclear missile-firing capability has highlighted this issue. The Government’s own estimate indicated it would cost over £20bn ($31bn). If we factor in running costs over the purported 40-year lifespan with £2bn a year (i.e., £80bn), plus at least £13bn in decommissioning costs, we have a total of £113bn ($174bn). Leaving aside how that much more could be done for the country with that amount of money, there is the military question of why that should be prioritised over the army which, already cut down to 82,000 troops by the Government, is now going to be further cut to 60,000. And with terrorism being the major threat, would not well trained and equipped troops be a less wasteful way to strengthen a country’s defence than having even more nuclear weapons against fanatics who are quite prepared to martyr themselves?
*
Add up all these costs, and we have trillions of pounds/dollars spent on generating profits for the few and hazards for the many; an expensive short-term solution for now and the risk of radioactive leaks for virtually ever; devastating industrial accidents threatening our safety and dysfunctional military priorities undermining our security.
What a waste.
--
[1] Recent Deutsche Bank analysis confirmed it was cheaper in around 30 countries than grid electricity, and others are likely to follow.
[2] In fact, the UK Government is further cutting public support for solar energy and using its planning power to curtail the development of wind farms.
But it brings in its wake the most dangerous waste – not just in the form of its deadly radioactive by-products which retain their potency to destroy lives for hundreds of thousands of years, but in terms of the resources its production consumes when they can be so much more beneficially utilised elsewhere.
Let us look at a few facts relating to the economics of nuclear power.
Disguised Costs
It is often claimed that safe, renewable energy such as solar powered electricity costs users more than nuclear-power generated electricity. But that is because, instead of comparing the retail costs of both on the same basis (which would reveal solar powered electricity to be cheaper [1]), the retail cost of the former is compared with the wholesale price nuclear plants charge electricity companies. Not only is this a false comparison, the ‘lower’ wholesale cost of nuclear-based electricity masks a huge government subsidy to the nuclear industry.
In the UK alone, the government’s own 2012/13 budget revealed that £2.5bn ($3.8bn) a year was spent on “nuclear legacy” issues (i.e. decommissioning and waste handling). Nuclear companies would charge electricity suppliers a lot more if the government (using taxpayers’ money) does not cover the costs of dealing with their nuclear waste. No such subsidy on a comparable scale is given to solar or wind energy [2].
Plutocratic Deals
While solar and wind energy companies are relatively small, start-ups, the nuclear business is made up of large corporations with the financial muscle to do deals with governments to maximise their own profits. When plutocratic parties are in power, no matter if they are in the east or west, they align themselves with the agenda of wealthy corporations. The latest example can be seen with the UK Government asking for China’s help to finance the £24.5bn ($38bn) Hinkley nuclear plant project, and in return, China will be given the opportunity to construct another nuclear plant at Bradwell in Essex, which will be owned by Chinese companies. To assist Chinese investors, the UK Government will give a £2bn ($3.07bn) loan guarantee for the Hinkley project. The profit will go to wealthy corporations based abroad, and the harmful nuclear waste will be left in Britain.
Costly Accidents Do Happen
The nuclear business model is dependent on people forgetting that when nuclear power plant accidents happen, they can be devastating, and such accidents do happen. Between 1952 and 2009 there were at least 99 nuclear power plant accidents (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 [£32,555] of property damage) around the world. The total property damage caused by these accidents amounted to $20.5bn (£13.4bn). The most notorious of these was of course Chernobyl (1986), where in Belarus alone, incidence of congenital defects rose by 40% within six years of the accident. Even the lowest estimate of cancer related deaths caused by Chernobyl put the number at 27,000 worldwide.
After Chernobyl, lessons were supposed to have been learnt, and the mistakes of a Soviet-era operation would allegedly not be found in developed democracies around the world. Then came Fukushima in 2011. While the death toll from radiation exposure will rise from the 1,232 reached in 2014, the bill for radiation clean up and compensation for injuries has been estimated at $105bn (£68bn).
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Nuclear Weapons
Finally, it may be argued that even though the civil use of nuclear power generates too much harmful waste and dangerous accidents, its military use is vital. Without disputing the principle that the possession of nuclear weapons by at least one country necessitates their acquisition by a number of other countries to maintain a balance of power, there is still the issue of strategic coherence.
The sole objective of nuclear weapons has always been to deter an enemy invasion. And while there are already more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire planet’s population, more is still being spent on them. A 2011 report estimated that the nine ‘nuke’ countries spent $100bn (£65bn) in a single year on developing and maintaining their nuclear weapons. Yet far from giving them sufficient security, they spent a further 10 times more (i.e., $1trillion) on their non-nuclear military capability.
It has reached a point where it is clear that the ever-expanding purchase of nuclear weaponry may not meet either economic or military objectives. In the UK, the debate about replacing Trident submarines with nuclear missile-firing capability has highlighted this issue. The Government’s own estimate indicated it would cost over £20bn ($31bn). If we factor in running costs over the purported 40-year lifespan with £2bn a year (i.e., £80bn), plus at least £13bn in decommissioning costs, we have a total of £113bn ($174bn). Leaving aside how that much more could be done for the country with that amount of money, there is the military question of why that should be prioritised over the army which, already cut down to 82,000 troops by the Government, is now going to be further cut to 60,000. And with terrorism being the major threat, would not well trained and equipped troops be a less wasteful way to strengthen a country’s defence than having even more nuclear weapons against fanatics who are quite prepared to martyr themselves?
*
Add up all these costs, and we have trillions of pounds/dollars spent on generating profits for the few and hazards for the many; an expensive short-term solution for now and the risk of radioactive leaks for virtually ever; devastating industrial accidents threatening our safety and dysfunctional military priorities undermining our security.
What a waste.
--
[1] Recent Deutsche Bank analysis confirmed it was cheaper in around 30 countries than grid electricity, and others are likely to follow.
[2] In fact, the UK Government is further cutting public support for solar energy and using its planning power to curtail the development of wind farms.
Thursday, 1 October 2015
Nietzsche, all too Nietzsche
People who took no interest in politics, Pericles famously remarked, were not just minding their own business, but they had no business living in a democracy.
If people were not to submit to a tyrant, or descend into lawlessness, they must engage in collective deliberations – and that involves learning about each other’s perspectives, discussing contested proposals, and reaching decisions on rules and policies they would subsequently live by.
But in recent decades, as voter turnout drops, political literacy declines, there is correspondingly a rise in what may be described as Nietzschean individualism.
Against the ethos of respecting the needs of others and cooperating with one’s fellow citizens to work out shared strategies for the common good, the Nietzschean outlook insists that individuals should stand alone and consider solely what they ought to do to improve their own selves. Joining with others is dismissed as losing oneself in a crowd. Caring for the weak is deemed a sign of weakness. Only those who focus on making themselves better than what they had been stood any chance of becoming Übermensch (commonly translated as ‘super human’, but more accurately, ‘over-and-above the normal human self’). Otherwise, they are to be lamented as ‘human, all too human’.
Nietzsche of course has often been misunderstood. His ideas were deliberately misappropriated by the Nazi regime when he in fact detested people with anti-Semitic views and treated blind nationalism with disdain. He was not adverse to the development and display of physical and military strength. But for him, it would only be meaningful if such strengths were directed at opponents stronger than oneself. To target those who were weaker would be for Nietzsche simply pathetic. He admired creative geniuses like Beethoven and Goethe for being determined to bring forth what no one else had conceived of before, and scaling new heights of aesthetic achievement.
There’s nothing wrong with striving to be a pioneer, but the distinctive Nietzschean flavour comes with what one is supposed to exclude in the process. Nietzsche wants the passion for overcoming one’s mundane self to be so all-consuming that there is no place left for considerate interactions with others.
As Nietzsche’s philosophy is inherently opposed to rules and prescriptions, what greater self one strives to become is entirely left to individuals to decide with no reference to social implications. A Beethoven may write music that enriches countless lives, while the founder of a tobacco company may cause millions of premature deaths. Morally, it’s all the same to Nietzsche.
This indifference to the fate of others, combined with the exclusive push to meet one’s self-selected challenges, has not surprisingly bred the notion of the ‘striver’ as a contemporary hero. Such ‘strivers’ are to be praised, and they deserve to take whatever they can get, because they are relentless in pursuing their own ‘self-determined’ goals.
Some ‘strivers’ may by chance make the world a better place, but experience tells us they are more likely to ruin the lives of others with barely a shrug of their shoulders. If making one’s corporation stronger means thousands would lose their jobs or left with barely enough to live on, one should press on and not be distracted. If expanding one’s fossil fuel empire generates vast environmental problems for others, one should proceed without hesitation.
Ultimately, the trouble with the Nietzschean notion of Übermensch, is that it encourages the discarding of social bonds when people need more than ever to understand each other and cooperate more effectively. Since Nietzschean strivers will always overlook the impact of their actions on the wider society as simply not their business, they have no business calling the shots in any democratic society.
If people were not to submit to a tyrant, or descend into lawlessness, they must engage in collective deliberations – and that involves learning about each other’s perspectives, discussing contested proposals, and reaching decisions on rules and policies they would subsequently live by.
But in recent decades, as voter turnout drops, political literacy declines, there is correspondingly a rise in what may be described as Nietzschean individualism.
Against the ethos of respecting the needs of others and cooperating with one’s fellow citizens to work out shared strategies for the common good, the Nietzschean outlook insists that individuals should stand alone and consider solely what they ought to do to improve their own selves. Joining with others is dismissed as losing oneself in a crowd. Caring for the weak is deemed a sign of weakness. Only those who focus on making themselves better than what they had been stood any chance of becoming Übermensch (commonly translated as ‘super human’, but more accurately, ‘over-and-above the normal human self’). Otherwise, they are to be lamented as ‘human, all too human’.
Nietzsche of course has often been misunderstood. His ideas were deliberately misappropriated by the Nazi regime when he in fact detested people with anti-Semitic views and treated blind nationalism with disdain. He was not adverse to the development and display of physical and military strength. But for him, it would only be meaningful if such strengths were directed at opponents stronger than oneself. To target those who were weaker would be for Nietzsche simply pathetic. He admired creative geniuses like Beethoven and Goethe for being determined to bring forth what no one else had conceived of before, and scaling new heights of aesthetic achievement.
There’s nothing wrong with striving to be a pioneer, but the distinctive Nietzschean flavour comes with what one is supposed to exclude in the process. Nietzsche wants the passion for overcoming one’s mundane self to be so all-consuming that there is no place left for considerate interactions with others.
As Nietzsche’s philosophy is inherently opposed to rules and prescriptions, what greater self one strives to become is entirely left to individuals to decide with no reference to social implications. A Beethoven may write music that enriches countless lives, while the founder of a tobacco company may cause millions of premature deaths. Morally, it’s all the same to Nietzsche.
This indifference to the fate of others, combined with the exclusive push to meet one’s self-selected challenges, has not surprisingly bred the notion of the ‘striver’ as a contemporary hero. Such ‘strivers’ are to be praised, and they deserve to take whatever they can get, because they are relentless in pursuing their own ‘self-determined’ goals.
Some ‘strivers’ may by chance make the world a better place, but experience tells us they are more likely to ruin the lives of others with barely a shrug of their shoulders. If making one’s corporation stronger means thousands would lose their jobs or left with barely enough to live on, one should press on and not be distracted. If expanding one’s fossil fuel empire generates vast environmental problems for others, one should proceed without hesitation.
Ultimately, the trouble with the Nietzschean notion of Übermensch, is that it encourages the discarding of social bonds when people need more than ever to understand each other and cooperate more effectively. Since Nietzschean strivers will always overlook the impact of their actions on the wider society as simply not their business, they have no business calling the shots in any democratic society.
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Journey to the Real Centre of Politics
Whether it’s Bernie Sanders in the US or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, the media are always on hand to tell the public to be wary of politicians who seek to move their country ‘to the left’. By implication, it is always better to stay near the ‘centre’. But what is the centre and what makes it so special?
One common response is to locate it at the mid-point between rival political views – in short, split the difference between ‘left’ and ‘right’. But when ultra-conservative Republicans and Tories have shifted so far to the right of the post-war socio-economic consensus, and the majority who are relatively on the left have stayed timidly silent, the halfway mark between these two camps no longer defines a position of moderation, but denotes the most serious antipathy towards what an earlier generation of Republican and Conservative leaders such as Eisenhower and Macmillan respected as basic decency.
Another attempt to pinpoint the centre is to place it where consensus can be reached. This might make sense if people were all as open-minded and considerate as each other. But give-and-take does not work well when some are so much more relentless in taking and notably less prepared for giving.
Take a look at two opinion polls. In one US Gallup Poll (November 2010), people were asked if they wanted their political representatives to rule out compromise or embrace it to at least achieve some useful results. Amongst supporters of the Republican Party, 43% rejected compromise (only 32% would accept it); whereas for the Democrats, just 18% rejected compromise (while 59% would accept it).
In a YouGov Survey of Americans (September 2015), people were asked if they would support a military coup against their own government if in their opinion that government has gone too far. The figure for Republicans was 43% backing a military coup; while that for Democrats was just 20%.
So if we aim for the ‘centre’ as where trade-offs may take us, then we will end up where those who are twice as likely to resort to a violent rejection of what they don’t like, and only half as ready to make any concession, will dominate the agenda and get their own way at the expense of others.
This contrast between those who are much more inclined to impose their wills on others, and those are disposed to respect everyone with equal concern, actually helps to identify what a meaningful centre may consist of. Since different individuals and organisations may use their power to pursue their goals, if some of them have too much power over others, the risk of exploitation and oppression rises substantially. The only way to avoid this is for the power distribution of any country to be so well balanced that none in it can mistreat others, and all recognise that their shared interests are best enhanced through mutual support.
Instead of blindly pressing for more power for corporations or unions, government agencies or scrutiny bodies, businesses or regulators, courts or representatives of citizens, the proper political challenge is to secure a sound balance all round.
On this basis, the central focus of politics, under current conditions, has to be on curbing the excessive power of, for example, the surveillance state, the property developers, the polluters, the irresponsible finance sector, the exploiters of cheap and vulnerable labour, etc, so that cooperation can emerge as an option for shared endeavour, available to all. And what is all too often pejoratively dismissed as ‘far left’ these days is in fact precisely where the real centre of politics should be.
One common response is to locate it at the mid-point between rival political views – in short, split the difference between ‘left’ and ‘right’. But when ultra-conservative Republicans and Tories have shifted so far to the right of the post-war socio-economic consensus, and the majority who are relatively on the left have stayed timidly silent, the halfway mark between these two camps no longer defines a position of moderation, but denotes the most serious antipathy towards what an earlier generation of Republican and Conservative leaders such as Eisenhower and Macmillan respected as basic decency.
Another attempt to pinpoint the centre is to place it where consensus can be reached. This might make sense if people were all as open-minded and considerate as each other. But give-and-take does not work well when some are so much more relentless in taking and notably less prepared for giving.
Take a look at two opinion polls. In one US Gallup Poll (November 2010), people were asked if they wanted their political representatives to rule out compromise or embrace it to at least achieve some useful results. Amongst supporters of the Republican Party, 43% rejected compromise (only 32% would accept it); whereas for the Democrats, just 18% rejected compromise (while 59% would accept it).
In a YouGov Survey of Americans (September 2015), people were asked if they would support a military coup against their own government if in their opinion that government has gone too far. The figure for Republicans was 43% backing a military coup; while that for Democrats was just 20%.
So if we aim for the ‘centre’ as where trade-offs may take us, then we will end up where those who are twice as likely to resort to a violent rejection of what they don’t like, and only half as ready to make any concession, will dominate the agenda and get their own way at the expense of others.
This contrast between those who are much more inclined to impose their wills on others, and those are disposed to respect everyone with equal concern, actually helps to identify what a meaningful centre may consist of. Since different individuals and organisations may use their power to pursue their goals, if some of them have too much power over others, the risk of exploitation and oppression rises substantially. The only way to avoid this is for the power distribution of any country to be so well balanced that none in it can mistreat others, and all recognise that their shared interests are best enhanced through mutual support.
Instead of blindly pressing for more power for corporations or unions, government agencies or scrutiny bodies, businesses or regulators, courts or representatives of citizens, the proper political challenge is to secure a sound balance all round.
On this basis, the central focus of politics, under current conditions, has to be on curbing the excessive power of, for example, the surveillance state, the property developers, the polluters, the irresponsible finance sector, the exploiters of cheap and vulnerable labour, etc, so that cooperation can emerge as an option for shared endeavour, available to all. And what is all too often pejoratively dismissed as ‘far left’ these days is in fact precisely where the real centre of politics should be.
Tuesday, 1 September 2015
Convert or Con Victim?
Can we say that people who switch their allegiance to anything we find objectionable must have been deceived/brainwashed/radicalised?
Take these cases:
• People change from one religion (or no belief) to one we have nothing to do with.
• People drop a widely trusted brand to a product we are not keen on ourselves.
• People switch their political support to a party we dislike.
Compare it with these cases:
• People join what is described as a cult.
• People refuse standard medication and pay large sums to buy from someone with the notoriety of a snake-oil merchant.
• People dedicate themselves to a political group with an extremist/violent agenda.
In the first set of cases, the general assumption is that people have been converted to back something else, and while we may not agree with it, there are no grounds to block people changing their minds in these matters.
In the second set of cases, a common view is that something unacceptable has been perpetrated to deceive or distort the thinking of the people concerned, and the latter need to be saved from their predicament.
But this distinction rests on the supposition that the intensity with which we recoil from something or how widely a position is treated with disdain would be sufficient to justify the claim that anyone switching to it must have had their minds unduly messed with. And this is fallacious on two counts.
First, how much we detest an idea, and how many other people share that revulsion, does not mean that the idea can only be believed by a deceived/twisted mind. Throughout history, feminism, pacifism, heliocentricism, inoculation, democracy, and many other notions, have all at one time struck the majority of people as outrageous. In those times, those who came to believe in these ideas might be demonstrating more of having an enlightened intellect than a deceived mind.
Secondly, just because an idea may not appear to be repugnant to many people, it is nonetheless possible that people can be deceived/manipulated into embracing it. From mass advertising to fuel the consumption of harmful substance, to the practice of some divorced couples to turn their children against the other parent, brainwashing may not be far off the mark in denoting what goes on.
So how can we separate the conning of people from fair persuasion? The answer is to be found in how the ‘conversion’ process is conducted. There are three tests that need to be passed:
1. Do the ‘persuaders’ treat the subject of the process with the same degree of respect and concern as they would expect in reverse? Or do they weigh the gains to themselves from a successful conversion more heavily against the losses the converted would have to endure as a result?
2. Are the ‘persuaders’ prepared to engage in an open and cooperative exchange with their subject and others to ascertain the reliability of what they are claiming to be the truth? Or do they want to close off as much as possible relevant arguments and evidence that may cast doubt on their position?
3. Will the ‘persuaders’ check back with their subject about how they would like to proceed? Or is one of their key aims to get the subject to surrender decision-making about specific matters (e.g., money to spend, readiness to use weapons, ganging up on certain people) to them?
Where all three tests are passed positively, it is most likely that legitimate persuasion is taking place. Where only one or two are passed, the process is dubious. And where all three are failed, then it is highly probable that the subject is being unfairly conned/manipulated into accepting something he/she would under more transparent conditions reject.
--
The three tests mentioned above are based on the three communitarian principles for guiding interpersonal behaviour. You can find out more about them in the post, ‘Communitarians: an introduction’, or in the book, Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship.
Take these cases:
• People change from one religion (or no belief) to one we have nothing to do with.
• People drop a widely trusted brand to a product we are not keen on ourselves.
• People switch their political support to a party we dislike.
Compare it with these cases:
• People join what is described as a cult.
• People refuse standard medication and pay large sums to buy from someone with the notoriety of a snake-oil merchant.
• People dedicate themselves to a political group with an extremist/violent agenda.
In the first set of cases, the general assumption is that people have been converted to back something else, and while we may not agree with it, there are no grounds to block people changing their minds in these matters.
In the second set of cases, a common view is that something unacceptable has been perpetrated to deceive or distort the thinking of the people concerned, and the latter need to be saved from their predicament.
But this distinction rests on the supposition that the intensity with which we recoil from something or how widely a position is treated with disdain would be sufficient to justify the claim that anyone switching to it must have had their minds unduly messed with. And this is fallacious on two counts.
First, how much we detest an idea, and how many other people share that revulsion, does not mean that the idea can only be believed by a deceived/twisted mind. Throughout history, feminism, pacifism, heliocentricism, inoculation, democracy, and many other notions, have all at one time struck the majority of people as outrageous. In those times, those who came to believe in these ideas might be demonstrating more of having an enlightened intellect than a deceived mind.
Secondly, just because an idea may not appear to be repugnant to many people, it is nonetheless possible that people can be deceived/manipulated into embracing it. From mass advertising to fuel the consumption of harmful substance, to the practice of some divorced couples to turn their children against the other parent, brainwashing may not be far off the mark in denoting what goes on.
So how can we separate the conning of people from fair persuasion? The answer is to be found in how the ‘conversion’ process is conducted. There are three tests that need to be passed:
1. Do the ‘persuaders’ treat the subject of the process with the same degree of respect and concern as they would expect in reverse? Or do they weigh the gains to themselves from a successful conversion more heavily against the losses the converted would have to endure as a result?
2. Are the ‘persuaders’ prepared to engage in an open and cooperative exchange with their subject and others to ascertain the reliability of what they are claiming to be the truth? Or do they want to close off as much as possible relevant arguments and evidence that may cast doubt on their position?
3. Will the ‘persuaders’ check back with their subject about how they would like to proceed? Or is one of their key aims to get the subject to surrender decision-making about specific matters (e.g., money to spend, readiness to use weapons, ganging up on certain people) to them?
Where all three tests are passed positively, it is most likely that legitimate persuasion is taking place. Where only one or two are passed, the process is dubious. And where all three are failed, then it is highly probable that the subject is being unfairly conned/manipulated into accepting something he/she would under more transparent conditions reject.
--
The three tests mentioned above are based on the three communitarian principles for guiding interpersonal behaviour. You can find out more about them in the post, ‘Communitarians: an introduction’, or in the book, Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship.
Saturday, 15 August 2015
Plutocracy: a lesson for citizen education
Let us begin with a quotation from a politician who embodied the plutocratic approach to government. US Senator Boies Penrose (Republican) told his big business supporters how it was going to work:
"I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money ... and out of your profits, you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money."
That was back in 1896, and in the subsequent century, Penrose’s strategy has become entrenched in the operations of political parties on the Right in the US, the UK, and many other countries too. The aim is to concentrate wealth more and more in the hands of the corporate elite. To do that, the earnings and job security of everyone else must be curtailed as much as possible. And to deflect public attention from the endemic exploitation, unions, immigrants, the poorest and the jobless are to be routinely vilified as scapegoats.
Instead of teaching how democratic ideals are supposedly upheld or how myriad government institutions function, each new generation of citizens should be taught how plutocracy has taken over the running of our state and society, and how the many will be made to serve the narrow interests of the wealthy elite until the relentless manipulation is finally exposed and overturned.
A historical case study is always handy: if we go back to Senator Penrose, we find him showing the way for others to follow in subsequent decades. In the run-up to the Presidential election of 1920, he discovered that the candidate in the lead to secure the Republican Party’s nomination was Leonard Wood, an advocate for profit sharing and employee share ownership, and supporter of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting policies [Note 1].
Penrose sent a message to Wood, offering to swing the remaining delegates behind him, provided Wood would in return give Penrose and his oil interest friends control of three business-related posts in his cabinet. After Wood refused, Penrose used his connections in the party to push enough votes in the direction of Warren G. Harding to get him the nomination.
Harding went on to win the 1920 election, and led a presidential administration mired in scandals, resignations and corruption. Every major policy was designed to please big business, with taxes cut for the rich, and workers enduring numerous wage reductions. Harding was followed as President by Calvin Coolidge, and then Herbert Hoover. Together their 12 years of plutocratic Republican Presidency brought the US and then the world into the Great Depression.
In response to Democrats’ efforts from F.D. Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson to correct the de-stabilising bias of the Right’s plutocratic policies, the Republicans dedicated themselves fully to the Penrose doctrine of capturing government institutions solely to serve the superrich. In Britain, their ideological kin, the Conservative Party, has since the 1970s adopted exactly the same approach.
And these parties will go on convincing many people to buy into their exploitative agenda unless we begin to explain why in fact not all parties respect the interests of all citizens regardless of their wealth, and teach everyone about the dangers of plutocracy as a growing and highly corrosive force.
--
[Note 1: Although Teddy Roosevelt became US President for one term as a member of the Republican Party, his progressive policies proved too much for the party and when he sought re-election, he stood as the candidate for the Progressive Party.]
"I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money ... and out of your profits, you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money."
That was back in 1896, and in the subsequent century, Penrose’s strategy has become entrenched in the operations of political parties on the Right in the US, the UK, and many other countries too. The aim is to concentrate wealth more and more in the hands of the corporate elite. To do that, the earnings and job security of everyone else must be curtailed as much as possible. And to deflect public attention from the endemic exploitation, unions, immigrants, the poorest and the jobless are to be routinely vilified as scapegoats.
Instead of teaching how democratic ideals are supposedly upheld or how myriad government institutions function, each new generation of citizens should be taught how plutocracy has taken over the running of our state and society, and how the many will be made to serve the narrow interests of the wealthy elite until the relentless manipulation is finally exposed and overturned.
A historical case study is always handy: if we go back to Senator Penrose, we find him showing the way for others to follow in subsequent decades. In the run-up to the Presidential election of 1920, he discovered that the candidate in the lead to secure the Republican Party’s nomination was Leonard Wood, an advocate for profit sharing and employee share ownership, and supporter of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting policies [Note 1].
Penrose sent a message to Wood, offering to swing the remaining delegates behind him, provided Wood would in return give Penrose and his oil interest friends control of three business-related posts in his cabinet. After Wood refused, Penrose used his connections in the party to push enough votes in the direction of Warren G. Harding to get him the nomination.
Harding went on to win the 1920 election, and led a presidential administration mired in scandals, resignations and corruption. Every major policy was designed to please big business, with taxes cut for the rich, and workers enduring numerous wage reductions. Harding was followed as President by Calvin Coolidge, and then Herbert Hoover. Together their 12 years of plutocratic Republican Presidency brought the US and then the world into the Great Depression.
In response to Democrats’ efforts from F.D. Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson to correct the de-stabilising bias of the Right’s plutocratic policies, the Republicans dedicated themselves fully to the Penrose doctrine of capturing government institutions solely to serve the superrich. In Britain, their ideological kin, the Conservative Party, has since the 1970s adopted exactly the same approach.
And these parties will go on convincing many people to buy into their exploitative agenda unless we begin to explain why in fact not all parties respect the interests of all citizens regardless of their wealth, and teach everyone about the dangers of plutocracy as a growing and highly corrosive force.
--
[Note 1: Although Teddy Roosevelt became US President for one term as a member of the Republican Party, his progressive policies proved too much for the party and when he sought re-election, he stood as the candidate for the Progressive Party.]
Saturday, 1 August 2015
O Humanities, Where Art Thou?
The revival of interest during the Renaissance in what came to be referred to as the Humanities led to a watershed in how we think about the world and our place in it. Down the centuries since, it has been through the Humanities that we learn about our own potential as human beings – discovering why we can strive for a better future and how we must avoid the mistakes of our past.
So why is there a relentless move against the teaching of Humanities? Why do so many people in powerful positions want to see funding and time allocation cut for Humanities subjects? There are three inter-related reasons.
First, the rise of global plutocracy has fuelled the desire amongst those who have amassed the greatest wealth through rigged markets, to preserve the status quo. They do not want money to be ‘wasted’ on enabling people to think critically about how human interactions and social priorities may be altered.
Secondly, since only certain subjects are expected to contribute to the strengthening and expansion of corporate wealth and power, plutocrats want investment to target only these subjects.
Thirdly, instead of challenging the ideology of Mammon, all too many in the field of Humanities have simply retreated. Some have sought survival by mimicking the scientific-technological disciplines by conjuring up contrived quantification and equation. Others have shrunk their attention to micro-specialisms so they can have something ‘original’ to get published and make a claim for research funding.
The net impact is that the ineffectuality of the Humanities becomes more and more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of enriching our understanding so we can reflect on how we should live, any attempt to address that very question is deemed too broad to merit academic consideration, which must have a tightly disciplined focus.
But what can be done? One long overdue move is to bring forward intellectual perspectives that offer alternative conceptions of how we should respond to life’s threats and opportunities, and relate to one another in ways unbound by the prejudices of outmoded traditions or the free-for-all of contemporary plutocracy.
In order to do this, we need to draw on the resources of philosophy, literature, history, sociology, etc to develop ideas on how we should live. One such set of ideas, often termed ‘progressive communitarianism’, synthesizes insights on the value of reciprocity, the nature of reasoning and consensus building, and the connections between community bonds and inclusive decision-making, into a cogent alternative for reviewing human interactions.
What progressive communitarian ideas offer, is not a definitive theory, but a possible model for how we can rethink and re-organise human relationships in diverse institutional and societal contexts.
The only antidote to plutocrats filling people’s minds with the false notion that their Mammon-centric system of society is the sole option for humanity, is to present the world with a different vision. To see what such an alternative may entail, take a look at ‘Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism’.
So why is there a relentless move against the teaching of Humanities? Why do so many people in powerful positions want to see funding and time allocation cut for Humanities subjects? There are three inter-related reasons.
First, the rise of global plutocracy has fuelled the desire amongst those who have amassed the greatest wealth through rigged markets, to preserve the status quo. They do not want money to be ‘wasted’ on enabling people to think critically about how human interactions and social priorities may be altered.
Secondly, since only certain subjects are expected to contribute to the strengthening and expansion of corporate wealth and power, plutocrats want investment to target only these subjects.
Thirdly, instead of challenging the ideology of Mammon, all too many in the field of Humanities have simply retreated. Some have sought survival by mimicking the scientific-technological disciplines by conjuring up contrived quantification and equation. Others have shrunk their attention to micro-specialisms so they can have something ‘original’ to get published and make a claim for research funding.
The net impact is that the ineffectuality of the Humanities becomes more and more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of enriching our understanding so we can reflect on how we should live, any attempt to address that very question is deemed too broad to merit academic consideration, which must have a tightly disciplined focus.
But what can be done? One long overdue move is to bring forward intellectual perspectives that offer alternative conceptions of how we should respond to life’s threats and opportunities, and relate to one another in ways unbound by the prejudices of outmoded traditions or the free-for-all of contemporary plutocracy.
In order to do this, we need to draw on the resources of philosophy, literature, history, sociology, etc to develop ideas on how we should live. One such set of ideas, often termed ‘progressive communitarianism’, synthesizes insights on the value of reciprocity, the nature of reasoning and consensus building, and the connections between community bonds and inclusive decision-making, into a cogent alternative for reviewing human interactions.
What progressive communitarian ideas offer, is not a definitive theory, but a possible model for how we can rethink and re-organise human relationships in diverse institutional and societal contexts.
The only antidote to plutocrats filling people’s minds with the false notion that their Mammon-centric system of society is the sole option for humanity, is to present the world with a different vision. To see what such an alternative may entail, take a look at ‘Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)