When our country needs help, shouldn’t we all contribute more according to our ability for the sake of the common good? Some to their credit are willing to do just that, but others keep coming up with reasons why they should be left alone. One argument suggests what money individuals make is their business and no one else has a right to demand a share of it. Another claim that because of the ‘Debt Crisis’ there is simply no money left to share with anyone. And finally, there are those who insist that what spare money there is should only be lent to private individuals and firms, but it must not be invested in any form of public provisions.
Let us look at these arguments one by one.
For a start, it is obvious that though some people know how to make a lot of money, it does not necessarily follow they have a right to keep that money. For example, there is no legitimacy to the money-making activities of those who push narcotic drugs, traffick people, steal, con, or extort from others. There are also problems with people who pollute, promote addictive consumption, or tempt others into taking excessive risks with their money or their health. In all such cases, society has an interest in deciding what laws and policies should be put in place to curb the activities in question, which may involve taxing, fining or even confiscating the proceeds generated by them.
Apart from taking money from those who have acquired it by dubious means, a democratic state also has a responsibility to ensure sufficient resources are pooled together to deal with threats which would otherwise harm society. This can’t be left to individuals to chip in as they see fit, for the simple reason that there are inevitably freeriders who would try to benefit from the pot without sparing any of their own fortune.
At this point we hear the familiar cry of “There’s no money.” But has all the money really disappeared? In the UK, unclaimed assets – money sitting in accounts with no claimant – are conservatively estimated to stand at £77billion. Evasion and avoidance of taxes stash away another £120billion. And corporations outside the financial sector (ie they are not banks) are sitting on cash reserves of £756billion (Ernst & Young estimate). In truth there is plenty of money, the question is what should be done with it.
Many people seem to forget that when the banking sector was in danger of collapsing, it took bailout money from us via the state (estimate fluctuates between £500billion to 1trillion). Now the UK banks sit on assets of nearly £7trillion and pay out £13billion in bonuses (2012), yet some still pretend it would be sacrilegious to suggest that they should help the country by loaning, investing, or paying a windfall contribution to fund public works to revive the economy. These same people urge the banks to lend more to the private sector when private debt as % of GDP is six times higher than that of the public sector debt. Furthermore, while this approach is showing no sign of generating growth, a definitive study* has confirmed that a fiscal expansion funded by borrowing will lead to growth, and with the current unemployment level, reduce the deficit.
Let’s start using our country’s money more wisely.
[*The Economic Consequences of Mr Osborne - Fiscal Consolidation: lessons from a century of UK macroeconomic statistics, by V Chick & A Pettifor, University College London & Policy Research in Macroeconomics, 2010, revised 2011]
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
The Greed Tyranny
Why do people with much more power and money than the rest of society take it upon themselves to reshape public policies to secure even greater domination over everyone else? What drives them to seduce politicians with their substantial donations and media influence? Or to strike fear into voters against imaginary threats so they would back policies that actually serve the corporate elite at their expense?
The answer lies with the sixth giant, Greed.
After the defeat of fascism in the Second World War, progressives rallied to Beveridge’s vision of slaying the five infamous giants of Ignorance, Idleness, Squalor, Disease, and Want. A civilised society in partnership with a responsive state would ensure the provision of education, employment, housing, healthcare, and social security. Public debt of over 200% of GDP was brought down through growth fuelled by state investment in building a better future for everyone. Quality of life improved substantially, especially for those on lower income.
But they forgot about Greed. And Greed struck back with a vengeance.
From the 1980s on, Greed in the form of plutocratic manipulators have driven forward a relentless agenda to make the wealthiest 5-10% in society even more rich and powerful by releasing them from any bond of solidarity with the other 90%.
Ideological arguments do not so much shape this agenda as are deployed to justify the overriding aim of amassing more power and resources for those with the most, while making everyone else more dependent on them.
These plutocrats – Reaganites, Thatcherites, funders for ‘protest’ parties like the Tea Party & UKIP – push for taxes to be cut to widen the gap between rich and poor. They press for public provisions to be slashed so that it will hurt the 90% but will have little impact on the wealthiest. They arrange for public assets to be handed over to private corporations so the few can make profit from the rest and penalise those who cannot afford to pay. They repeal laws as red tape if these hinder the wealth accumulation of corporations, but bring in regulations to clamp down on any resistance from workers and unions to arbitrary business diktats. Worst of all, they orchestrate scapegoating campaigns to deceive people about the real causes of social and economic problems, and divert public anger towards vulnerable people least able to defend themselves: immigrants, disabled people, the unemployed, those in dire poverty.
Greed, with the other giant causes of human misery in its tow, is now a tyrannical force in politics. Those most adept at squeezing dry the fruit of ordinary people’s labour, and siphoning off the resultant nectar to their private reservoir, are granted a place at the apex as ‘wealth-creators’ and can pick their own privileges. Everyone else is robbed of equal access to quality education, decent jobs, affordable homes, free healthcare, and a real safety net.
Politicians looking to rally the great majority of the public to join forces in rebuilding our society, step forth and declare: it’s time to end the tyranny of Greed.
[There are two public talks in Cambridge this May on ‘The Problem with Plutocracy’ by Dr. Henry Tam:
7 May, Tuesday, ‘Left with a Hard Choice: the contest of democracy v plutocracy’
13 May, Monday, ‘Will this be the Plutocratic Century?’
For more details, see ‘The Problem with Plutocracy’]
The answer lies with the sixth giant, Greed.
After the defeat of fascism in the Second World War, progressives rallied to Beveridge’s vision of slaying the five infamous giants of Ignorance, Idleness, Squalor, Disease, and Want. A civilised society in partnership with a responsive state would ensure the provision of education, employment, housing, healthcare, and social security. Public debt of over 200% of GDP was brought down through growth fuelled by state investment in building a better future for everyone. Quality of life improved substantially, especially for those on lower income.
But they forgot about Greed. And Greed struck back with a vengeance.
From the 1980s on, Greed in the form of plutocratic manipulators have driven forward a relentless agenda to make the wealthiest 5-10% in society even more rich and powerful by releasing them from any bond of solidarity with the other 90%.
Ideological arguments do not so much shape this agenda as are deployed to justify the overriding aim of amassing more power and resources for those with the most, while making everyone else more dependent on them.
These plutocrats – Reaganites, Thatcherites, funders for ‘protest’ parties like the Tea Party & UKIP – push for taxes to be cut to widen the gap between rich and poor. They press for public provisions to be slashed so that it will hurt the 90% but will have little impact on the wealthiest. They arrange for public assets to be handed over to private corporations so the few can make profit from the rest and penalise those who cannot afford to pay. They repeal laws as red tape if these hinder the wealth accumulation of corporations, but bring in regulations to clamp down on any resistance from workers and unions to arbitrary business diktats. Worst of all, they orchestrate scapegoating campaigns to deceive people about the real causes of social and economic problems, and divert public anger towards vulnerable people least able to defend themselves: immigrants, disabled people, the unemployed, those in dire poverty.
Greed, with the other giant causes of human misery in its tow, is now a tyrannical force in politics. Those most adept at squeezing dry the fruit of ordinary people’s labour, and siphoning off the resultant nectar to their private reservoir, are granted a place at the apex as ‘wealth-creators’ and can pick their own privileges. Everyone else is robbed of equal access to quality education, decent jobs, affordable homes, free healthcare, and a real safety net.
Politicians looking to rally the great majority of the public to join forces in rebuilding our society, step forth and declare: it’s time to end the tyranny of Greed.
[There are two public talks in Cambridge this May on ‘The Problem with Plutocracy’ by Dr. Henry Tam:
7 May, Tuesday, ‘Left with a Hard Choice: the contest of democracy v plutocracy’
13 May, Monday, ‘Will this be the Plutocratic Century?’
For more details, see ‘The Problem with Plutocracy’]
Monday, 15 April 2013
The ATOS Inquisition
There was a time when the Spanish Inquisition hunted down those with the ‘wrong’ beliefs and made them recant their heresy. Now the British Government has rekindled its spirit, but with the aim of confronting the sick and the maimed so as to make them recant their disability.
Imagine you have been struck down by an illness, and according to your doctor, you will no longer be able to carry out work that would earn you a wage in today’s economy. For a time, you draw solace from the fact that you live under a state that maintains a genuine safety net for all, and you will not be left jobless, homeless, or having to beg for charity to keep you alive.
But then a Conservative-led Government comes along and decides that the best way to deflect public attention from its refusal to curb the excessive powers of the corporate elite is to serve up scapegoats. So it tells two and a half million people incapacitated by diverse forms of illness and injury that it will no longer pay any attention to what the doctors who have actually dealt with them have to say. Instead, it brings in the corporation, ATOS, to light the flame of recantation.
ATOS Inquisitors, armed with the mandate to interrogate and declare as many disabled people as undeserving of public support, have plunged countless vulnerable people into the deepest despair.
Examples of ATOS callousness and incompetence abound. Calling themselves ‘assessors’, they ask those summoned to appear before them questions such as “how long have you had Down’s Syndrome?” or “when did you catch autism?” A middle-aged woman, registered blind, was simply told that her benefit would be withdrawn. In another case, a 24-year-old epileptic, who was subject to grand mal seizures, had his benefit cut after he was ‘assessed’ to be fit for work. Just three months later, after living in fear that he could not pay his rent or buy food, he had a major seizure and died. People with debilitating and terminal cancer have also been told they had to surrender their benefits.
For those who managed to find help to appeal against ATOS, a third have had their assessments overturned. But many are too stressed or isolated to mount a challenge. Justice can only prevail if the entire inquisition regime is cast aside. The National Audit Office has investigated and found ATOS work to be unsatisfactory. The British Medical Association has asked for the assessment system to be scrapped.
But the Government is not relenting for one moment, even if people are dying from the fear and reality of losing what little money they had hitherto relied on to stay afloat. The Government is bringing in even more stringent inquisitional criteria to cut the provision of life-saving benefits. Meanwhile, they reward ATOS so handsomely that its chief executive is given a £1 million bonus.
If the ATOS Inquisition had featured in a dystopian novel about what a rightwing government might do, it would be decried as irresponsible scaremongering. Sadly it is all too real.
[To learn more about the Employment & Support Allowance (ESA), take the ESA Quiz. Note: the number of people claiming benefit as they are unable to work has not actually risen since 1997]
Imagine you have been struck down by an illness, and according to your doctor, you will no longer be able to carry out work that would earn you a wage in today’s economy. For a time, you draw solace from the fact that you live under a state that maintains a genuine safety net for all, and you will not be left jobless, homeless, or having to beg for charity to keep you alive.
But then a Conservative-led Government comes along and decides that the best way to deflect public attention from its refusal to curb the excessive powers of the corporate elite is to serve up scapegoats. So it tells two and a half million people incapacitated by diverse forms of illness and injury that it will no longer pay any attention to what the doctors who have actually dealt with them have to say. Instead, it brings in the corporation, ATOS, to light the flame of recantation.
ATOS Inquisitors, armed with the mandate to interrogate and declare as many disabled people as undeserving of public support, have plunged countless vulnerable people into the deepest despair.
Examples of ATOS callousness and incompetence abound. Calling themselves ‘assessors’, they ask those summoned to appear before them questions such as “how long have you had Down’s Syndrome?” or “when did you catch autism?” A middle-aged woman, registered blind, was simply told that her benefit would be withdrawn. In another case, a 24-year-old epileptic, who was subject to grand mal seizures, had his benefit cut after he was ‘assessed’ to be fit for work. Just three months later, after living in fear that he could not pay his rent or buy food, he had a major seizure and died. People with debilitating and terminal cancer have also been told they had to surrender their benefits.
For those who managed to find help to appeal against ATOS, a third have had their assessments overturned. But many are too stressed or isolated to mount a challenge. Justice can only prevail if the entire inquisition regime is cast aside. The National Audit Office has investigated and found ATOS work to be unsatisfactory. The British Medical Association has asked for the assessment system to be scrapped.
But the Government is not relenting for one moment, even if people are dying from the fear and reality of losing what little money they had hitherto relied on to stay afloat. The Government is bringing in even more stringent inquisitional criteria to cut the provision of life-saving benefits. Meanwhile, they reward ATOS so handsomely that its chief executive is given a £1 million bonus.
If the ATOS Inquisition had featured in a dystopian novel about what a rightwing government might do, it would be decried as irresponsible scaremongering. Sadly it is all too real.
[To learn more about the Employment & Support Allowance (ESA), take the ESA Quiz. Note: the number of people claiming benefit as they are unable to work has not actually risen since 1997]
Monday, 1 April 2013
Don’t Know Much About Politics?
In the recent ‘No, Minister’ poll (conducted between February and mid March before the latest Budget announcement), people were asked to vote for up to three Cabinet Ministers in the UK who they would like to see removed from their post.
The three Secretaries of State the British public most wanted gone turned out to be Iain Duncan Smith (Work & Pensions Secretary, picked by 46% of those who voted), Michael Gove (Education Secretary, 35%), and George Osborne (Chancellor, 34%). [As each respondent could cast up to 3 votes, the % of voters wanting different Ministers removed add up to over 100%. It is also worth noting that in a Telegraph poll of Conservative Party members, the top two favourite Ministers were Gove (41%) and Duncan Smith (14%)]
Although the response mechanism was self-selecting, a number of observations can nonetheless be made. For example, the three ‘most unwanted’ politicians share one notable characteristic: they were unapologetic in pushing forward policies that are widely debated in the media for their likely harm to vulnerable groups (e.g., the disabled, jobless, children, the poor).
By contrast, despite the severe cuts and privatisation to which NHS services are subjected, Jeremy Hunt (Health Secretary) came a distant fourth (with just 17%) after routinely apologising for the faults of the NHS while consistently deflecting blame onto NHS employees. No other Secretary of State was anywhere near being picked by 10% of those who voted, even though their actions on cutting and privatising public services would also have major negative impact. But since the impact would be channelled through opaque processes of transfers to private contractors, or weakening of intermediary bodies (e.g., local authorities, legal aid providers), the Ministers concerned remain largely under the civic radar.
This raises the question that if the electorate in general reacts primarily to reports of blatant affront to our moral sensitivity, then politicians who are skilled at dressing up their policies with soothing words and delivery complexities may escape being held to account by the public. To counter this, we would need to increase our political understanding, and back our emotive responses with critical dissection of public policies.
Worryingly, the younger generation appears to be heading in the opposite direction. It is often said that young people are active in protests, but how many are engaged in shaping and securing support for policies to be implemented by government? The signs are that very few show much interest in what government does and how it can be changed. Indeed despite the support of many youth organisations in publicising the ‘No, Minister’ poll via Twitter and other social media, hardly anyone below mid-twenties took part in the poll.
According to a recent analysis of the British Social Attitudes Survey (from 1983-2010), today's young people are “less supportive of the NHS than their parents were; are less likely to favour higher benefits (though they are far more likely than their elders to be unemployed); and feel less connection to society at large than previous generations.” (‘Generation self: what do young people really care about?’, Guardian 11 March 2013)
The disengagement of young people from public institutions and collective provision undermines democracy. It could easily leave the wealthy elite to retain governmental control to serve the needs of the few. And unless political ignorance is radically dispelled, the prophecy of the government doing little for the people might just become perpetually self-fulfilling.
The three Secretaries of State the British public most wanted gone turned out to be Iain Duncan Smith (Work & Pensions Secretary, picked by 46% of those who voted), Michael Gove (Education Secretary, 35%), and George Osborne (Chancellor, 34%). [As each respondent could cast up to 3 votes, the % of voters wanting different Ministers removed add up to over 100%. It is also worth noting that in a Telegraph poll of Conservative Party members, the top two favourite Ministers were Gove (41%) and Duncan Smith (14%)]
Although the response mechanism was self-selecting, a number of observations can nonetheless be made. For example, the three ‘most unwanted’ politicians share one notable characteristic: they were unapologetic in pushing forward policies that are widely debated in the media for their likely harm to vulnerable groups (e.g., the disabled, jobless, children, the poor).
By contrast, despite the severe cuts and privatisation to which NHS services are subjected, Jeremy Hunt (Health Secretary) came a distant fourth (with just 17%) after routinely apologising for the faults of the NHS while consistently deflecting blame onto NHS employees. No other Secretary of State was anywhere near being picked by 10% of those who voted, even though their actions on cutting and privatising public services would also have major negative impact. But since the impact would be channelled through opaque processes of transfers to private contractors, or weakening of intermediary bodies (e.g., local authorities, legal aid providers), the Ministers concerned remain largely under the civic radar.
This raises the question that if the electorate in general reacts primarily to reports of blatant affront to our moral sensitivity, then politicians who are skilled at dressing up their policies with soothing words and delivery complexities may escape being held to account by the public. To counter this, we would need to increase our political understanding, and back our emotive responses with critical dissection of public policies.
Worryingly, the younger generation appears to be heading in the opposite direction. It is often said that young people are active in protests, but how many are engaged in shaping and securing support for policies to be implemented by government? The signs are that very few show much interest in what government does and how it can be changed. Indeed despite the support of many youth organisations in publicising the ‘No, Minister’ poll via Twitter and other social media, hardly anyone below mid-twenties took part in the poll.
According to a recent analysis of the British Social Attitudes Survey (from 1983-2010), today's young people are “less supportive of the NHS than their parents were; are less likely to favour higher benefits (though they are far more likely than their elders to be unemployed); and feel less connection to society at large than previous generations.” (‘Generation self: what do young people really care about?’, Guardian 11 March 2013)
The disengagement of young people from public institutions and collective provision undermines democracy. It could easily leave the wealthy elite to retain governmental control to serve the needs of the few. And unless political ignorance is radically dispelled, the prophecy of the government doing little for the people might just become perpetually self-fulfilling.
Saturday, 16 March 2013
Community Development at the Crossroads
The notion of ‘community’ has always attracted polarised observations. Some people praise communities as the cradle of moral values and social cohesion, while others warn against their oppressive tendencies and regressive influence. The truth is that communities can be the foundation for realising more fully what is good in human nature, provided they are steered away from stultifying dead-ends and guided forward in a democratic and inclusive direction (see, for example, ‘Communitarianism Revisited’).
That has been the challenge for community development in its broadest sense: stepping in to enable people to identify their shared interests and work together as equals to achieve common objectives. Since the 1960s, in the US and UK, community development work has been supported with public funding to build the confidence and capacity of countless neighbourhood communities to press for improvements, which would otherwise be overlooked or rejected. During the 2000s, the Labour Government actively supported community development work and developed programmes such as Together We Can to promote more effective community empowerment.
But its reliance on public funding makes this model of social improvement highly vulnerable to political shifts. In the UK, community development organisations at the national and local level have suffered severe cutbacks as the Conservative-led Government brought into office its ideology that communities should be left to their own devices rather than receive publicly funded support.
Community development thus faces a difficult future. There are suggestions that to survive, it must learn from other approaches to facilitating community action. For example, community organising relies on volunteer leaders to work with other volunteers to identify shared concerns, and raise money from corporate and individual donors where necessary to pay for specific activities. Community asset transfers provide a means for community members to raise money through land/property transferred to their ownership. Community cooperatives are supported by the financial and in-kind support given by their members whose shares both help to fund their organisation and guarantee each an equal say in how it is run.
At one level there is no question that community development should engage with other methodologies to establish an alternative basis to pursue its core objective. It can integrate other community-unifying techniques into a seamless offer for inchoate groups. It can be the hub for bringing people together to discuss priorities, resolve differences, plan for what they can address by themselves, and put pressure on those who have a duty to respond to their concerns.
At a deeper level, however, one has to recognise that the barriers, which community development practitioners work tirelessly to help their fellow citizens overcome, afflict all attempts to build community solidarity. There will be times when they are divided by conflicting interests in terms of funding needs or organisational profiles as well. And there are plutocrats who stand to gain from such divisions and they will do what they can to fuel them so as to prevent communities from developing a common front against their exploitation.
To address this problem, we need to draw on three sources of support: first, a shared framework for empowering communities to work together (see, for example, the ‘open-source’ approach of ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving’); secondly, a network of mutual-aid, which will require cooperative advocates, practitioners of diverse forms of community development and empowerment, and democratic educators to come together; and thirdly, vibrant leadership to build greater unity over current separations. Above all, community development activists need to apply what they have always promoted to those they seek to help, namely, identify others with a shared interest and unite behind an agenda for joint action.
[The above is based on my presentation for the Keib Thomas Memorial Seminar organised by the CDNL (Community Development Network London), 13 February 2013. CDNL offers: free membership; regular e-bulletin; 2-3 open meetings a year; a planning group which meets quarterly. For more on CDNL, contact Matt Scott via matt@victoriascottpainter.com]
That has been the challenge for community development in its broadest sense: stepping in to enable people to identify their shared interests and work together as equals to achieve common objectives. Since the 1960s, in the US and UK, community development work has been supported with public funding to build the confidence and capacity of countless neighbourhood communities to press for improvements, which would otherwise be overlooked or rejected. During the 2000s, the Labour Government actively supported community development work and developed programmes such as Together We Can to promote more effective community empowerment.
But its reliance on public funding makes this model of social improvement highly vulnerable to political shifts. In the UK, community development organisations at the national and local level have suffered severe cutbacks as the Conservative-led Government brought into office its ideology that communities should be left to their own devices rather than receive publicly funded support.
Community development thus faces a difficult future. There are suggestions that to survive, it must learn from other approaches to facilitating community action. For example, community organising relies on volunteer leaders to work with other volunteers to identify shared concerns, and raise money from corporate and individual donors where necessary to pay for specific activities. Community asset transfers provide a means for community members to raise money through land/property transferred to their ownership. Community cooperatives are supported by the financial and in-kind support given by their members whose shares both help to fund their organisation and guarantee each an equal say in how it is run.
At one level there is no question that community development should engage with other methodologies to establish an alternative basis to pursue its core objective. It can integrate other community-unifying techniques into a seamless offer for inchoate groups. It can be the hub for bringing people together to discuss priorities, resolve differences, plan for what they can address by themselves, and put pressure on those who have a duty to respond to their concerns.
At a deeper level, however, one has to recognise that the barriers, which community development practitioners work tirelessly to help their fellow citizens overcome, afflict all attempts to build community solidarity. There will be times when they are divided by conflicting interests in terms of funding needs or organisational profiles as well. And there are plutocrats who stand to gain from such divisions and they will do what they can to fuel them so as to prevent communities from developing a common front against their exploitation.
To address this problem, we need to draw on three sources of support: first, a shared framework for empowering communities to work together (see, for example, the ‘open-source’ approach of ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving’); secondly, a network of mutual-aid, which will require cooperative advocates, practitioners of diverse forms of community development and empowerment, and democratic educators to come together; and thirdly, vibrant leadership to build greater unity over current separations. Above all, community development activists need to apply what they have always promoted to those they seek to help, namely, identify others with a shared interest and unite behind an agenda for joint action.
[The above is based on my presentation for the Keib Thomas Memorial Seminar organised by the CDNL (Community Development Network London), 13 February 2013. CDNL offers: free membership; regular e-bulletin; 2-3 open meetings a year; a planning group which meets quarterly. For more on CDNL, contact Matt Scott via matt@victoriascottpainter.com]
Friday, 1 March 2013
The Power Hypothesis
For any social, economic, or political arrangement, a key question to ask is whether its distribution of power is so uneven as to allow some to exploit others without the latter being able to resist. If the answer is yes, then the arrangement is oppressive and inherently deficient, and should be reformed to reduce the prevailing level of power inequality.
So long as no one has so much power that they can bribe or threaten others who would otherwise be unwilling to act as instructed, then people will over time relate to each other in broadly reciprocal terms. All will know that either they are helpful and respectful towards others, or they would have to face others who would decline to be helpful and respectful to them. With no one side being able to take any unfair advantage over others, everyone has to find ways to interact on mutually beneficial terms. Any attempt to take from others without offering to give anything in return would be easy to detect, frowned upon, and duly dealt with.
Conversely, the further society departs from an even distribution of power, the Power Hypothesis predicts increasing prevalence of exploitation, as growing tension takes the place of reciprocal cooperation. A prince, a lord, a king, who has enough power that others fear that any opposition would be futile, would be able to ride roughshod over them. The same applies to heads of a household, a village, or an empire.
It also applies to international relations, where for centuries nations have sought to secure peace by means of a ‘Balance of Power’. And not surprisingly, when Spain, France, England, Germany at different times surged ahead of others in their socio-economic capability, they launched aggressive military operations against them.
Similarly, across contemporary society, oppressive behaviour surfaces where those in charge of organisations are not accountable to those they manage. Without a structure of employee rights to counter-balance managerial edicts, staff can be badly treated, and routinely see their share of the firm’s financial success disappearing into the inflated salaries and bonuses of their bosses.
Even worse treatment is meted out in institutions whenever there is a lack of democratic scrutiny to ensure those in charge do not abuse their authority in dealing with those placed under their jurisdiction: e.g., in care homes for the elderly, mental institutions, juvenile facilities, or prisons.
The only effective antidote in all such cases is for the power of all to be shared through a democratic system of governance. As a worker cooperative or a democratic state, such a body would treat each member as an equal, give each the support and protection they need, and expect from each an equal commitment to defend the common good.
Instead of arguing in broad generalities about ‘capitalism’ or ‘socialism’, ‘hierarchical traditions’ or ‘anarchic modernity’, we can apply the Power Hypothesis to the specific features of any form of human association and discover if they need to be reformed, and how far, to achieve greater power equilibrium. It has stood the test of time in differentiating harmful instability from sustainable cooperation. The more we use it as a guide to social and organisational development, the better off we would all be.
[Henry Tam’s book, Against Power Inequalities, a historical account of the problem of power inequality is available in e-book or paperback.]
So long as no one has so much power that they can bribe or threaten others who would otherwise be unwilling to act as instructed, then people will over time relate to each other in broadly reciprocal terms. All will know that either they are helpful and respectful towards others, or they would have to face others who would decline to be helpful and respectful to them. With no one side being able to take any unfair advantage over others, everyone has to find ways to interact on mutually beneficial terms. Any attempt to take from others without offering to give anything in return would be easy to detect, frowned upon, and duly dealt with.
Conversely, the further society departs from an even distribution of power, the Power Hypothesis predicts increasing prevalence of exploitation, as growing tension takes the place of reciprocal cooperation. A prince, a lord, a king, who has enough power that others fear that any opposition would be futile, would be able to ride roughshod over them. The same applies to heads of a household, a village, or an empire.
It also applies to international relations, where for centuries nations have sought to secure peace by means of a ‘Balance of Power’. And not surprisingly, when Spain, France, England, Germany at different times surged ahead of others in their socio-economic capability, they launched aggressive military operations against them.
Similarly, across contemporary society, oppressive behaviour surfaces where those in charge of organisations are not accountable to those they manage. Without a structure of employee rights to counter-balance managerial edicts, staff can be badly treated, and routinely see their share of the firm’s financial success disappearing into the inflated salaries and bonuses of their bosses.
Even worse treatment is meted out in institutions whenever there is a lack of democratic scrutiny to ensure those in charge do not abuse their authority in dealing with those placed under their jurisdiction: e.g., in care homes for the elderly, mental institutions, juvenile facilities, or prisons.
The only effective antidote in all such cases is for the power of all to be shared through a democratic system of governance. As a worker cooperative or a democratic state, such a body would treat each member as an equal, give each the support and protection they need, and expect from each an equal commitment to defend the common good.
Instead of arguing in broad generalities about ‘capitalism’ or ‘socialism’, ‘hierarchical traditions’ or ‘anarchic modernity’, we can apply the Power Hypothesis to the specific features of any form of human association and discover if they need to be reformed, and how far, to achieve greater power equilibrium. It has stood the test of time in differentiating harmful instability from sustainable cooperation. The more we use it as a guide to social and organisational development, the better off we would all be.
[Henry Tam’s book, Against Power Inequalities, a historical account of the problem of power inequality is available in e-book or paperback.]
Friday, 15 February 2013
Communitarianism Revisited
by Jonathan Boswell & Henry Tam
Communitarian concerns for mutuality and solidarity can be traced back to ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers and mainstream world religions. They came to be embraced in action by working class movements, cooperative Owenites and others in the 19th century. The ethos of cultivating democratic cooperation to build inclusive communities, where none will be left to the whim and mercy of others, became an inspiration to all who want an alternative to regimes that only regard might (military, hierarchical, or increasingly, economic) as right.
With the rampant rise of market individualism in the 1980s, the two of us (both academics – one ex-industry and politics, the other with experience from national and local government), decided to set out what communitarianism should mean in theory and practice if it is to help society navigate through the battering of plutocratic forces.
Jonathan Boswell’s book on democratic communitarianism, Community and the Economy (1990), argued for prioritising values of fraternity, complementary association and democratic participation. It examined public co-operation in the economy, and proposed arrangements whereby sectional interests could better co-operate with each other and government in the interests of social norms and public policies.
Henry Tam’s book, Communitarianism: A New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship (1998) attacked both individualism and authoritarianism. It argued for the ideal of inclusive communities based on the principles of co-operative enquiry, mutual responsibility and citizen participation. These were applied to the development of education, work and protection for citizens across state, business and third sectors.
Both books were widely reviewed and came to define the reform focus of communitarianism. We warned against allowing the Thatcherite-Reaganite ideology of the unrestrained market to corrode society and the economy. Sadly, however, plutocracy has since triumphed over the timid reform agenda of New Labour. We now have big money dominating government; public services relentlessly contracted out or sold off; accelerating disparities in income and wealth; deregulation unleashing greed, speculative frenzy and financial crisis; and failed banking institutions requiring bailouts, burdening the state with massive deficits. On top of it all, we have bone-headedly misguided economic policies, already producing miserable results for all but the privileged few.
So who is to be entrusted with rebuilding our crisis-torn economies and social fabrics? Up to 2010, our approach was to keep all political channels open. We placed a lot of emphasis on the voluntary, local and educational. We looked to civil society to play a key role, separate from party politics, as well as independent of both central government and the market. But in the light of what the present Government is doing to the UK, a party political strategy is no longer optional.
A new government is urgently needed to redress the damage and ensure those with an abundance of resources they have accumulated on the back of others’ hard work, will contribute to the common good. We've concluded that only the Labour Party is in a position to form such a government. But to succeed, Labour must face up to three key challenges.
First, it must be clear that it has learnt the lesson on the deregulations which helped to ruin the economy and distort public finances. It must be prepared to take vigorous state action to confront the problems of unethical, anti-social banking; over-mighty corporate lobbies; media irresponsibility; and massive tax avoidance. It should show leadership in investing in growth, employment, and affordable housing. It should recognise that to support these aims richer forms of public co-operation will be needed.
Secondly, it needs to promote social, civic and collaborative criteria, not competitive ones, in all public services from health and welfare, to education and criminal justice. Local government needs to be reinforced and empowered with real freedom, not financially decapitated. And it should ensure that citizens are aware of and involved in the development of decisions that affect them.
Thirdly, a Labour government should promote co-operative enterprises and both worker and community involvement in business in the private sector. It should also improve civic education and nurture public interest forums at local as well as national levels, as these will be important as bridges between social, economic, environmental and other groupings.
Blue Labour advocates have invoked some elements of communitarian thinking in their attempt to refocus British politics. In our view, the only worthy government would be one committed to meeting the communitarian challenges in full in reversing the growth of inequalities, rebuilding social solidarity, and reinvigorating a cooperative economy. That is the path to put our fragmented communities back together in one inclusive nation.
[Communitarian ideas were taken forward in the US too by eminent colleagues such as Amitai Etzioni, Philip Selznick, Charles Derber and Robert Bellah; and currently these ideas appear to have a major part to play in President Obama's Second Term.]
Communitarian concerns for mutuality and solidarity can be traced back to ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers and mainstream world religions. They came to be embraced in action by working class movements, cooperative Owenites and others in the 19th century. The ethos of cultivating democratic cooperation to build inclusive communities, where none will be left to the whim and mercy of others, became an inspiration to all who want an alternative to regimes that only regard might (military, hierarchical, or increasingly, economic) as right.
With the rampant rise of market individualism in the 1980s, the two of us (both academics – one ex-industry and politics, the other with experience from national and local government), decided to set out what communitarianism should mean in theory and practice if it is to help society navigate through the battering of plutocratic forces.
Jonathan Boswell’s book on democratic communitarianism, Community and the Economy (1990), argued for prioritising values of fraternity, complementary association and democratic participation. It examined public co-operation in the economy, and proposed arrangements whereby sectional interests could better co-operate with each other and government in the interests of social norms and public policies.
Henry Tam’s book, Communitarianism: A New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship (1998) attacked both individualism and authoritarianism. It argued for the ideal of inclusive communities based on the principles of co-operative enquiry, mutual responsibility and citizen participation. These were applied to the development of education, work and protection for citizens across state, business and third sectors.
Both books were widely reviewed and came to define the reform focus of communitarianism. We warned against allowing the Thatcherite-Reaganite ideology of the unrestrained market to corrode society and the economy. Sadly, however, plutocracy has since triumphed over the timid reform agenda of New Labour. We now have big money dominating government; public services relentlessly contracted out or sold off; accelerating disparities in income and wealth; deregulation unleashing greed, speculative frenzy and financial crisis; and failed banking institutions requiring bailouts, burdening the state with massive deficits. On top of it all, we have bone-headedly misguided economic policies, already producing miserable results for all but the privileged few.
So who is to be entrusted with rebuilding our crisis-torn economies and social fabrics? Up to 2010, our approach was to keep all political channels open. We placed a lot of emphasis on the voluntary, local and educational. We looked to civil society to play a key role, separate from party politics, as well as independent of both central government and the market. But in the light of what the present Government is doing to the UK, a party political strategy is no longer optional.
A new government is urgently needed to redress the damage and ensure those with an abundance of resources they have accumulated on the back of others’ hard work, will contribute to the common good. We've concluded that only the Labour Party is in a position to form such a government. But to succeed, Labour must face up to three key challenges.
First, it must be clear that it has learnt the lesson on the deregulations which helped to ruin the economy and distort public finances. It must be prepared to take vigorous state action to confront the problems of unethical, anti-social banking; over-mighty corporate lobbies; media irresponsibility; and massive tax avoidance. It should show leadership in investing in growth, employment, and affordable housing. It should recognise that to support these aims richer forms of public co-operation will be needed.
Secondly, it needs to promote social, civic and collaborative criteria, not competitive ones, in all public services from health and welfare, to education and criminal justice. Local government needs to be reinforced and empowered with real freedom, not financially decapitated. And it should ensure that citizens are aware of and involved in the development of decisions that affect them.
Thirdly, a Labour government should promote co-operative enterprises and both worker and community involvement in business in the private sector. It should also improve civic education and nurture public interest forums at local as well as national levels, as these will be important as bridges between social, economic, environmental and other groupings.
Blue Labour advocates have invoked some elements of communitarian thinking in their attempt to refocus British politics. In our view, the only worthy government would be one committed to meeting the communitarian challenges in full in reversing the growth of inequalities, rebuilding social solidarity, and reinvigorating a cooperative economy. That is the path to put our fragmented communities back together in one inclusive nation.
[Communitarian ideas were taken forward in the US too by eminent colleagues such as Amitai Etzioni, Philip Selznick, Charles Derber and Robert Bellah; and currently these ideas appear to have a major part to play in President Obama's Second Term.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)