Tri-Debate Part II

Shianux's reply: DINAPW- Replies, Rebuttals and Refinements
Related Post by coup de grace: An Open Letter to Wannabe Lawyer

I am pleased that Shianux has replied to the commentary on his earlier article, as I expected he would, and certainly he has clarified, to some extent, the logic and reasonings behind his arguments. I am afraid that while I am enlightened about his position, and further on how free-market fundamentalists (though Shianux does not posit such a term) see economic issues and social freedom, I am hardly persuaded to change my original position. I should probably state that this debate can probably continue forever, and I will simply do my best to sum up our differences, and leave the reader to continue his own exploration of the topic. As I mentioned, debating on economic theory is not one of my strongest point, and I will simply dwell into the area I know best. Mainly, what are the consequences for a society dictated by free-market principles?

I think the biggest line of difference, no doubt is Shianux's contention that the corporation is not a "pro-dictatorship" device, and in order to contrast that, he puts the government as a much more powerful institution. However, I think again, here the line of reasoning isn't sustainable. The implicit assumption is that "Get rid of the government, or at least their interference in the market and you will achieve justice and freedom. In other words, control should be abolished." This principle is totally unsustainable to me, even if governments were in some way, abolished or at least through free-market policy, paralyzed enough to deem them useless, what becomes of the law? The very problems that exist right now is not that corporations don't have control over governments, it is precisely that governments are subordinate to the corporation's greed for profit. Do corporations not have the power to take away life, liberty and property? They do, though again the domain can be different, which is through market power (though they are smart enough to co-opt political power as well). It is incredulous to expect corporations to wrestle power benevolently and that consumer power is the antidote to corporate misdeeds. Did Exxoon Mobile get put out of business, despite its abuse of power? Is Nestle, Cargill and ADM suffering from business profits for their child labour abuses? Anyone remember Enron? Did anyone think the Enron crisis was due to less government intervention or too much? Ever heard of SLAPPs? I think the amount of examples of corporate crime and deviance is enough to convince anyone that corporations are hardly a benovolent device, or at least restrained adequately through current measures, much less an invisible market.

I suspect that the counterargument would be that corporations are working in cahoots with governments, and thus it is the presence of governments that are to be blamed. That's not a fair line of reasoning, as it is through public participation and pressure that has actually forced corporations to address their misdeeds and violations of human rights. But the reforms that are initiated through public pressure usually end up becoming "white-wash" or "green-wash", and substantial reforms are not established unless the government steps in to either legislate or force the corporation to take action.

In fact, who are the public groups that are pressurizing corporations to take action? Labour Rights Groups. And these are the very groups that are going to be serving against the needs of the corporations to maximise profits. What has been the principle consequences of policies enacted by the WTO, World Bank and IMF? What forms of " freedom" have been spread by these global financial institutions? Why do labour rights groups continue to wrestle with their free market policies? Because they do recognise that corporations have the power to radically alter their lives. And that alteration has spelt more loss of freedom and human rights.

Corporate power is real. In fact, no matter what one makes of governments, they are at least an institution that is publicly accountable to the people. Their role has always been to serve the people to some degree, even if we have enormous discontentments against their self-serving roles. But the government is the very foundation we should be reforming, to ensure that public citizens are able to take full control of their lives and society. You can't reform the corporation without at least tampering with the instituitions of the state, and that's where direct action should be focused.

I believe, just as much as Shianux does, that real world evidence and pragmatics should also built up our arguments. To me, the most funamental ethos of living in human societies has been ignored in this debate: power. Our ways of living, whether in the social, economic or political sphere, and our freedom will always be controlled, restrained and modified to some degree by structures of authority and hierarchy. Corporations and governments are both instituitions that wield that power to constraint our freedom, and closer and closer, we are finding them to hold objectives less different from each other. In other words, although Shianux's world of non-governmental interference is approaching closer and closer, we still aren't witnessing the very benefits that free-market theorists advocate. Certainly, the Third World is yet to witness their "golden goose", because it hasn't and never will.

Now, that doesn't mean I make out all corporations to be evil institutions that are beyond redemption. There are many measures one can take to rehabilitate their their structural properties, but these efforts can only be enforced by a central authority, that want of a better word, is the government. Ethical shareholders possess little power, when they are confronted with a boardroom that has majority of members pursuing their own self-interests. Likewise, rehabilitating corporations may involve ensuring shareholders are responsible for the actions of their companies, instead of absolving them from liability. Another alternative is always small-family businesses. In this sense, I should have clarified with reference to 7-8's statement that "If you are pro- business, then in a way you are pro- corporation, and hence pro- dictatorship." I don't agree that being "pro-business" indicates that you are "pro-dictatorship". Trade and private enterprise has always been an enduring aspect of human civilisation, and by no means an eradictation of the activity promises a new future. Rather, it is imperative to study the best forms of process and measures to regulate private enterprise.

Let's also be clear about the concept of freedom. It is a paradox to argue that private property rights are any more, in principle, gems of freedom as compared to state ownership. Both forms of rights constraint freedom, and the corporations' right to amass more land, in service of their goals, is a more frightening picture than state governmental ownership who at least has to account for sharing that land with its people. Rather, the conglomeration of public land would be the most appropriate form of ownership, as that would ensure public communities act according to their own interests if they wish to see a large Wal-mart in their space or a national park. The public community should be deciding for themselves what, how or why the land would be used instead of decreeding it to the mandates of a corporation who has no cause to pander to their needs. Given the enormous power of the corporation, a small public community has no means to straighten their accountability.

It all boils down to this: Shianux's notion of individual freedoms versus my notion of individual and communitarian freedom. Taking away governments and reorganizing human societies to live according to market principles will indeed, expand individual freedom but at a cost that is more paramount than before. Imagine the private commodification of human rights, security, food, water and shelter. People in Bolivia are already frustrated with the corporations who have sat there, with little to none governmental interference, and taken away their access to public water and even rain water. Maybe one day, some schmuck may own a corporation, and maybe through his/her own personal ethics, not pursue such socially harmful policies, but that's a sign of blind faith, and in fact hardly reliable. In fact, the irony is as Shianux puts it: "If the CEO is incompetent, make him/her bear the cost of their ineptitude. Stop paying them, or make them repay their gains, or even charge them with criminal sanctions." Exactly, who has that power to charge criminal sanctions or stop paying them? Certainly, people to some extent but more than than, a self-governmental system made up of the people themselves.

Communitarian principles and freedom are just as important in their own right. Does anyone think measures to deter global harming is going to be successfully implemented by corporations who have no accountability to the public community, local or global? Their only interest is to shareholders, who already are individuals who use their freedom to forcefully extract as much resources to own for themselves. The gross inequality in this world is due to the unrestrained power of people, such as Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates and other CEOs, who utilize much of the world's limited resources for profit gains. Sometimes, I think people (especially those in Singapore) forget that a real world exists that only has a limited set of resources, and whether you like it or not, you can't have it all for yourself. How we go about designing a fair system of distribution is certainly a difficulty question to tackle, but in principle, we wouldn't want to increase the very foundations of the problem: namely, to allow more individuals hold more private power to own these resources.

Personally, I understand one central tenet of Shianux's argument: we both see the current government system as flawed, authoritarian and intrusive into the lives of ordinary people. I fully agree that some radical reforms are much needed, and I would also come close to abolishing this system of governmentality. But I differ with Shianux in respect to what that remedy is. Asides from the idealistic issue if a government could ever be successfully overthrown/demolished, the solution, to me, is to ensure people have more say in the organization of their own society, and if that includes a need for a government, so be it. However, that system should not be owned by any set or class of elites, who have narrow interests to serve and nonetheless, fend off themselves from public scrutiny and accountability with power of any kind, social, economic, or political.

Afterthoughts: Shianux has explicitly stated that he is a believer in Hayek's economic ideals. It goes without saying that there exists this concrete divergence between us, and while I have no sense of hostility towards his position (and hopefully, vice versa), I understand that this chasm won't be reconcilated through blog entries. These differences are much more fundamental and cuts between different philosophies of human knowledge, human nature and social organisation. Thus, I will simply state that the world will, in my opinion, be a much more scary place than as it is today, should free-market policy take rein in this world. In my world, that would involve the commordity of security, weapons, violence, health care, water, food, shelter and possibly air. I see a world where people believe in some abstract notion of price mechanics, invisible 'free' markets, and abusing economic freedom to punish the social freedom of the have-nots; imagine a world where subjective desires (i.e. a taste for fast food, Britney Spears music, and glossy diamonds extracted from mining fields utilizing child labour) have acquired a firmer status than before; and where those who struggle in the bottom ladder (yes, hierarchies will still exist) continue to question the justifications for their oppression (their answer would be because they aren't valued for their productivity thanks to the subjective tastes of the majority); and if anyone is still in doubt, those who are unsatisfied with the system will only find greater access to acquiring means (weapons for the highest bidder) to challenge those in power (well-deserved or not).

I apologise if this is a caricature of what a free-market world is supposed to look like; it is, but the potentialities in living in such a world grows only a few steps closer if one believes in ideals and principles that, to my mind, are seriously neglecting the complexities of human existence.

Postscript: I gave more thought as to if there were any present capitalist corporate structures I respect, and the closest is Brazil's Ricardo Semier whose version of industrial democracy has been called either a form of anarco-socialism or cutting-edge capitalism. And certainly Ricardo is able to state that "...the basic issues of the free market are there, which is - tell us how much time you want to work, tell us how much you need to make, tell us what you need in exchange, how you gratify yourself by doing something like this, and this does away with the political ideology issues which of what ism does this fall under because its just respecting anthropological issues instead of political ideas." Perhaps this is supposed to be the ideal model that is followed with the principles of free markets, and as I said, there is certainly scope to incorporate these forms of individual freedom into bureaucratic structures. My skepticism though, is that one is still left with the question of how private structures of power should moderate community needs and social issues, in other words, we still must contend with the consequences of the expansion of private power on public sphere.

Tri-Debate

Original Article: Democracy is not a populist whore
Related Article: Market Fundamentalism

I have been intrigued with a debate that has been sparked off firstly by Shianux of Wannabe Lawyer who has written a piece deriding the SDP policies. In relation to that, another blogger, 7-8 has examined his argument and scrutinized certain fallacies. I must confess, rightfully that my understanding of economic theory probably is not of equal standing as the above two authors, instead I approach this debate with a different focus: namely, what is the kind of economic organization a society can benefit from? While I understand there are idiosyncratic standards for different countries and cultures, I will try to follow on an idealistic principle, before considering the pragmatics. I will also contend with some of the ethics of argument that has been raised in the debate (i.e. these points were raised in the comments section of both articles).

I will start off by saying that I am more in agreement with 7-8's argument than Shianux. What worries me about Shianux's argument is that he proclaims that his criticism towards both the PAP and the SDP are for their "socialist and communitarian tendencies", and it is not clear to me, if he is opposed to these tendencies per say or that these tendencies are simply incompatibile with the broad economic framework of both parties or the nation or the global economy. Shianux also earlier identified himself, through my own inference that he is a "libertarian" and this would indicate some confusion regarding his political-economic position. In addition, he supports Tyler Cowen (of Marginal Revolution), whose economic policies are usually of the neoclassical and free-market variety.

Quite possibly, Shianux would belong to the group of "libertarians" in the US, along with people such as Stirner, who dedicate themselves to free-market capitalism, and this would, in my opinion, be the minority among the larger tradition of libertarianism, such as the European libertarian socialist. It will be difficult, and definitely impossible in this small space, to elaborate and argue on the possible misfits of market fundamentalism theory, but nevertheless I will state my basic grievance with the theory. Firstly, the invisible hand of the market is an impossible concept that captures the complexities of human rights and needs, and comes close to commodizing nearly all aspects of human life. Secondly, wage-capitalism is close to being a form of slavery system, and certainly isn't free by any means. It isn't solely responsible for the contribution of inequality, but a significant contributor nevertheless. Thirdly, the basis of human social organisation shouldn't be transfering power to the hands of the few who have incredible power to dictate the social life of individuals (regardless if we speak of political or economic domains of power), but to distribute them equally. And market fundamentalism doesn't provide that platform to work on.

Therefore, I do agree with 7-8's postulation that a reliance on free-market theory is very risky and dangerous, and simply attacking the SDP and PAP for tendencies that are otherwise contrary to free-market theory, is misdirected in the first place. What we would want to ensure for any political party should achieve is to surrender power to the population directly, and ensure they are involved in the decision-making process themselves. The market was never the right domain, politics can still continue to be the right arena, what should be modified is the structure and ethos of political power, then we will reach for a more equitable and just democratic organization. There are many proposals as to how to reach this consensus, but my support isn't with the force or mechanics of market theory.

In the midst of the debate, a thorny question has been raised: Given the dominance of the PAP, should Shianux be excused for his harangue against the SDP, or insidiously, should we continue to be overtly critical to the Opposition? There are a few assumptions behind this equation: 1) the PAP is big and bad enough. We should give some minimal form of support for the Opposition, even if they aren't as competent as we would like them to be. 2) The Opposition is not perfect, but that doesn't mean they are that horrible. 3) Shianux is free to engage in constructive debate about the economic policies of the SDP but he should refrain from the profanity and cursing as that crosses the line.

These three basic assumptions are, to my mind, inter-related and as such, I won't answer them sequentially. Instead, I think the rather broad theme is, no doubt, the reference to Shianux's title, democracy. Namely, what does democracy entail? Does that mean the distribution of power, even if the members are undeserving of it? Does that mean free speech and rights should be accorded to members of society who might be deemed incompetent, stupid and "dumbass"? And would democracy also indicate the unabridled freedom of throwing in vulgarity and emotional angst to substantiate an argument?

My brief answer, as I wouldn't have the time to extrapolate it into 10 or more pages, is that Shianux is completely free to accuse the SDP as malignantly as he pleases. If one speaks of democracy, or rather free speech, then one is freely able to label any individual or organization an idiot, donkey-ass or moron as he/she chooses. However, the exercising of free speech doesn't imply that value judgements should be excluded from the process. One is still able to address if such language or speeches contribute to the productivity of the dialogue or communicative process between parties. Hence, calling CSJ or MM Lee as first-rate dorks may not be prohibited but it certainly doesn't substantiate your argument any better (NB: unfortunately, psychological research has found that the use of vulgarity or crude language tends to add authenticity to the argument). Likewise, the reader's contention of Shianux's article should not be with his use of language, but rather his argumentive points, which 7-8 has graciously engaged with.

Hence, when it comes to supporting either political party, the fundamental issue, which shouldn't be deviated away from, is whose arguments or policies do you support with? Shianux deserves the full right not to side with the PAP or the SDP, if he deems both parties to craft policies antithetical to his liking or position. Any member of society should decide for him/herself the kind of social policies compatible with their fundamental beliefs, even if it is as grossly outrageous as supporting a fascists dictator, such as Hitler. Thus, when an ST newspaper report earlier covered on some young students supporting Hitler, our right course to action should not be to lecture them on the evils of supporting Hitler, but to spur them to beg the question of what would be the consequences of their beliefs in supporting fascism [Oddly, in this regard, the leaders in authority did the right thing by asking them to complete a research project on the history of Hitler. Sadly, this course of action should be encouraged and undertaken for all, especially on dissents, instead of suing them for libel].

What does all this imply for the political scene in Singapore? Throw in the towel since the Oppositions are too unfaithful or give them support nonetheless? Neither. This means that every individual should undertake the freedom to change the political means, through any means they see fit. There are several ways, a myrid of tactics one can consider, each bearing their own weight, costs and consequences. Supporting the Opposition outright wouldn't necessarily lead to a direct victory over the current system of oppression and domination, and supporting the PAP might also lead to dire situations that inflate their control [or the corporate managers' control]. Simply, I don't see any contradiction if everyone chooses to support neither, but participates in pushing both parties to adopt goals that are synonymous with achieving a system of social equality and liberty. For instance, I don't think both sides have addressed the rights of gay people in Singapore, and it makes no difference to me whoever sits on the top branches of society [although one can argue, in theory, that if the SDP is able to supplant a more open system of democracy and free speech, then there is potential to open up discussions on these social issues]. I also forsee the possibility, however remote, of opening up gaps within the current political regime to change aspects of social policy (e.g. the PAP's strong support for "feminism", though this is contentious in its own right), to me, the possibilities of change should not solely be in the hands of political power exchanges. Instead, a social movement, here and elsewhere, should always be based on distributing that level of power equally among people and in my mind, this will only be achieved through various means, and will simply not be tolerated by the minds of the narrow-minded.

'Peanuts'

I like this term now. Peanuts. It so exemplifies how grossly distorted significant social problems become, and how heavy-handed tactics are utilized against what becomes 'legitimized' as a social problem.

Recently, an announcement has been made about assisting lower-income (or lower-skilled) workers. This includes "two possible ways: grants to their Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts for home purchases and through Medifund, which helps the needy pay big medical bills." Along with this, it has been stressed that this is simply a following pattern of globalization and that "[f]or the lower-skilled, whose incomes are not increasing like the highly-skilled, the Government can top-up their assets" as well as "[giving] equal education opportunities for their children." Now of course, I wouldn't ignore the other uptopian-like ideals of "changing the educational system to increase critical thinking", "encouraging the growth of new small and medium enterprises", and "conducting a network of free trade agreements" and etc.

To the uncritical eye, this might seem like a bright and optimistic proposal, but this is truly a "peanut"-approach to a systematic and global problem. The global widening gap between the rich and the poor is not solved by supplying them with the means to make an easier home purchase nor to bill them with less costly medical bills, but requires an inquiry and, nonethless, an examination of economic, employment and labour policies. Equal education does not promote equal opportunity (i.e. what kind of education are we speaking? What trade skill? And for which industry? Viable in which country?), in fact, it is likely that they will be re-educated to take in jobs that are favourable to the "competitive" employment environment, none of which might lead to their desired goals, or either a natural consequence of their qualifications. Wasn't it not too long ago that a national report stated that undergraduates were among the most "unemployed" representative?

Free-trade agreements don't solve poverty problems (or at least gaps between the rich and the poor), and surely perpetrated it instead in other Third World Countries. If the educational system truly encouraged critical thinking, we would bear witness to see local issues being scrutinized, debated and criticised. The NKF fiasco was quickly swept under the carpet, again law and order came with white wings to close the case. No inquiry, no recommendation, no commission was made to address the genesis of the issue, and neither would an independent, a truly independent power that was free from the tangles of co-opted political, economic and judicial interests, inquiry be initiated. No, critical thinking is simply the reproduction of herd mentality, to improve economic growth (that may not necessarily translate to an easier standard of living), and probably wonder in confusion where that so-called economic benefits is supposed to flow to.

Instead, let us contrast this blinkered approach to helping lower-working class people with the powerful and excessive approach to a peaceful protest of 4 people. Let us ignore the legality of the act (though we should be reminded that they did not commit an illegal act) , and perhaps the truthfulness of the event (i.e. that someone had called the protest a nuisance act). Let's apply some critical thinking here, shall we? If I were to see a group of gangsters fighting with each other, and lets put the figure to 8, which is easily twice as much for this protest, should I expect to see 80 members of riot police in gear? And surely, a protest, even if it had turned to, at its most extreme violent name-calling, would it be any less harmful than deviants wielding knives and broken bottles? Also, how are concerns related from a member of the public usually handled? Certainly, unless that said person specifically mentioned a chaotic and catastrophic riot or protest, should we expect to see the deployment of 40 riot police. So one must imagine that the kind of drama and fear this special "member of the public" must have concocted to alert our friendly neighbourhood guardians of social order.

In time, both of these events will fade in memory. The lower-income class may receive some benefits, as I am no doubt they are used to the usual benefits that arrive to their help at every economic predicament, regardless if it is growth, decline or recession. The riot police may not surface again, and probably not at these numbers for sometime to come. Instead, the message from both these events remain fixated in the minds of the citizens: The leaders of this country will always remain the absolute judges of the magnitude of social problems, and in determining their response to it. Disobedience, and challenge to their fundamental rule will not be tolerated.

That's the 'peanuts' moral story of the day.