You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
NewLiving Diary Index
|
item0051D 816, 817 816 15 September 2003 The case for
These passionate eyes are a standing reproach to the softies of the European democratic left. They are the eyes of Subcomandante Marcos, the socialist leader of the Mexican Chiapas "guerilla" rebels, the Zapatista National Liberation Army. The Zapatistas were among the protesters at the WTO meeting at Cancun, last weekend. His ringing denunciation of capitalist globalisation was fittingly published in The Guardian. But is there really a comprehensive "socialist" alternative? No successful model of society has emerged which does not predicate self-interest as a primary personal motivation, closely linked with the phenomenon of private property. "Capitalism" is a simply model of society in which the power of private property has got grossly out of hand. Marx was correct to identify, as a key source of oppression in society, the exploitation of private property power - the power of "capital". Of all the forces generating power relationships - property, religion, military conquest - it is property which remains the least well understood., the originating source of power, military conquest and allegiance, has in most parts of the world become heavily overlaid with political convention, and other conventions developed to contain the abuse of such power - from the French Revolution onwards. Grave abuses of power remain, in the conventional military sector (cluster bombs, land mines), but in most Western societies there is an acute sensitivity to the abuse of state power, and an understanding of its systemic containment. In the religious sphere , some progress has been made, but mankind continues to demonstrate a strong propensity for the abuse of power arising from religious convictions, as the "fundamentalist" element in contemporary terrorism indicates. The repeated generation of destructive religious cults, in a number of religions, testifies to this awful propensity. Many of the most intractable conflicts of power remain those with strong religious dimensions, whether in Kashmir, Palestine or Belfast. Human society has not yet successfully contained the destructiveness of destructive religious conviction.And in the sphere of private property , there is little popular understanding of the multitudinous systems for the abuse of property power, both corporate and unincorporated. Mankind's difficulties are not limited to those of the corporate sector: "debt slavery" does not commonly involve artificial persons (i.e. corporations), yet it represents a monstrous abuse of power which brings daily misery to millions. Many Third World debt repayment schemes represent the most awful human exploitation, under the guise of commercial propriety. For millions upon millions of workers, their daily terms of employment constitute abuses of power on a gigantic scale. And Subcomandante Marcos is right: as the creed of globalisation and free trade continues to cede greater power to the corporate sector, and to disable countervailing systems of power such as Governments, these abuses will grow, not diminish.Finally, in a "Republican" United States the world is seeing the emergence of a super-power which integrates property power and political power in a unique and destructive way. In the USA, the corporate sector has deeply interpenetrated the State, indeed is seemingly capable of dictating to State institutions. Added to that, there is the additional force of a renewed "Christian" fundamentalism in the United States, which threatens to unite the third source of power with the first two, to make an awesome juggernaut of potential abuse. You will see that my analysis, my world-view, runs in parallel with that of Subcomandante Marcos - indeed with much of the old-style "Revolutionary Left" - IS, SWP, Socialist Alliance - whose practical politics I reject. For me, the parting of the ways comes not in the analysis, but in the conclusions drawn from it.For I see these wrongs as falling to be remedied by social democratic means within a unitary model of society, in which private property, and benign religion, both play their part. For me, humankind responds understandably to a wide range of stimuli and circumstance - principally, the inherent uncertainties of life and the need to counter them: that is what my major essay Multiple Differential Uncertainty is all about. I do not recognise the "dualist" model of society, which seems to generate (understandably) the motivation of the Zapatistas and (less understandably) the European "revolutionary Left". The is no evidence that they model, without private property, would work. There is one model, of common aspirations and hopes, and broadly common values - related to home and family, individual achievement and self-realisation, self-reliance and earning a living, self-interest admixed with altruism, a preference for a peaceful civic order. I believe these values to be universal, underpinning a unifying, and unitary, model of human society. There is neither a capitalist nor a socialist model of society - though there are between countries wide differences in the delivery of equality and freedom. I observe a range of political and social systems which are more, or less, successful in the regulation of the abuse of power whencesoever it comes. For democratic socialists, the best strategy is to use the institutions of law and social convention to protect individuals against the abuse of power - statutory regulation and prescription, ongoing public surveillance, Human Rights systems, the redistribution of wealth by a "welfare state". For the human rights "interest" (to which I proudly belong) one of the most difficult challenges is to tackle the abuse of power which lies within the machine of benign enforcement itself - Police and other investigative powers, intended for good, can so easily themselves become the means of power abuse.
15 September 2003 Mounting anxiety
Subtlety is needed, in the drive to deliver "reassurance" to our people. I have no doubt that Jackie Ashley (writing in The Guardian) is right: there is at large a mounting sense of anxiety and fear which is unsettling our lives. "Much of the developing Labour agenda for the next few years," she says, "seems designed to reassure insecure voters that the Government has a grip (on the situation)". And so it should. Countering anxiety is a key function of modern government. The methodology however is complex, and indirect - see my essay Multiple Differential Uncertainty. I t is my thesis that anxiety is an endemic condition of mankind, which is heightened by education and by modern science. Evolution has equipped mankind, however, with a number of countervailing processes which neutralise the otherwise crippling effects of anxiety - youthfulness, mating, parturition, young parenthood, these state of mind and being are remarkably effective in countering cognitive uncertainties, and their correlative anxieties.Man - ever the toolmaker - has developed other techniques for holding back the anxieties and staying sane - varieties of religious doctrine, extreme sports, types of financial insurance, wealth accumulation, collective support provision. And on top of that, mankind has discovered many other ways of simply escaping from the harshness of anxiety (alcohol, psychoactive drugs, hedonism of all kinds). With all these supports, most people get through life, and are indeed living longer. But even with all these countervailing processes in play, mental illness is said to affect some 40% of mankind, in the course of a lifetime. Mankind is a sophisticated, sentient, intelligent creature liable both to elation and depression, both collectively and individually.feel good factor". All modern consumer economies depend crucially on the maintenance of collective confidence, in people's ability to counter their anxieties, and keep consuming. That is why this has now moved to the centre-stage of democratic politics. But how can a mere "Government" deal with all the complexities of modern anxiety? It cannot. And my thesis does not require it to do so. My view is that "anxiety" is a generic state of mind, triggered by a multitude of different factors, in cocktails which differ from person to person. Governments can never match Anxiety A with Reassurance A. But Governments can act reassuringly, in ways which reduce the corrosive effect of anxiety overall - and that can restore the feel-good factor. But it is pointless - and theoretically unsound - to try and match every worry with a correlative reassurance., some people are worried about the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, skin cancers, the slow burning of the globe. Others are anxious about the discoveries of modern science. Many others are worried about "the declining morals of the young". Now: no Government can act directly to counter those anxieties, nor should Government (in my view) attempt to do so. Government should take countervailing action in those areas within its influence and control, thus reducing the overall incidence of anxiety - reducing the sum total of human anxiety. Thus - action to counter the pervasive Western anxiety about unemployment would enormously strengthen the feel good factor. And the creation of a new, adequate, State Old Age Pension would banish the blues for millions upon millions of our fellow citizens. Underpinned by better unemployment benefit, and better pensions, people would be better equipped to tackle their ozone-layer worries, and GM crops, and their fear of teenagers...That is why all western Governments have, since 9/11, intervened so dramatically to shore up the insurance and re-insurance industries - "insurance" is a pillar of the re-assurance process, countering for millions the demons of anxiety.
PS I am delighted to see that the talented Michael Jacobs, the retiring General Secretary of the Fabian Society, is to join Gordon Brown's team of advisers for the pre-Election period. Michael is a thinker of great originality and persuasiveness - rare for an economist - and will be the right man, in the right place, at the right time...What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|
