Essays 2000-2010

Contents: Essays 2000-2010

1. Five Strategic Mistakes
2. History and Progress
3. The Three Revolutions
4. Liberal Capitalism
5. Concept of Progressive Capitalism
6. Stereotyping Capitalism and Bad Strategic Thinking

Five Strategic Mistakes

Summary: Strategic mistakes by policy makers have created havoc and political disasters in the beginning of the 21st century. Five strategic mistakes are highlighted in this essay. These have had a global impact of enormous proportions on decisions. They can be corrected by a change in strategic thinking amongst policy makers.

I believe that progress and pluralism is inextricably linked in the 21st century.

As an expert in international political economy, I wanted to examine some of the assumptions being made by policy thinkers about strategic questions in the modern world.

In this article, I seek to highlight five strategic mistakes made by policy experts about the 21st century. Although, it is tempting to say these are the mistakes of the neo-Conservatives, but I will not say this because I do not dismiss all the thinking of the neo-Conservatives and I do not believe the five strategic mistakes are confined to them at all.

Strategic Mistake One

1. Has the battle for democracy been won? Is it really 'The End of History'.

Progress in a political system is found in a pluralist democracy. The biggest event in this respect was the defeat of communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union in 1989 and 1991. During the Second World War, Nazi and fascist dictatorship was defeated across Europe as well as their Japanese military allies in the East. Democracy triumphed twice in decisive ways.

Francis Fukuyama, the international political economy expert, described this as ‘End of History’ (in the famous book of the title) stating that liberal democracy had triumphed on a global stage. However, this made an assumption that democracy in developed or Western countries was the only democracy that mattered. This was a strategically mistaken characterization. Democracy only triumphed in the West and developed countries.

Ironically, communist dictatorship also survived in China, North Korea and a few other places. The mistake was not to take seriously the blow to democracy in the defeat of the Tiananmen Square Democracy Movement of China – in a very close run thing, I would argue with top Chinese leaders equivocal about it and the hardliners finally winning the argument for dictatorship through using military crackdown against peaceful protesters. Equally, the threat of ‘Islamic fascism’ was also a real. This is the form of third world religious dictatorship in the name of a religious, which is far removed from progressive or renaissance pluralist Islam with scientific ideas and ideas of multi-faith/secular states. Third world dictatorships were still alive across the world (e.g. Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, Venezuela, Hamas regime in Gaza, etc). Today, these dictatorships use the rhetoric of ‘anti-imperialism’ as a way to obtain support across the world including in the Western left/liberal circles. However, the main attack by these dictatorships is on democracy in the West and specifically democracy in developing and emerging economies. There is a very serious battle going on in the world. Anti-imperialism is used to sap away the support from democracy. The battle has not been won. It is being fought.

Terrorism is also a modern form of attack on democracy in the West.

So democracy has not won its final battle. To believe this is a false sense of triumphalism. It belittles the challenges faced by democrats across the world specifically in the developing and emerging world.

Strategic Mistake Two

2. Clash of Civilisations and Racism– Is it reactionary?

The second major strategic mistake in international political economy has been to back authoritarian religious movements in the name of democracy. The whole ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis and neoconservative policy was a strategic blunder. The Christian right sought to attack other cultures and religions and undermine the progressive movement in the West. It also sought to mobilize the most right wing elements of Christian mass movement into an anti-progressive movement across the world. The only really progressive movement in the modern world is one based on pluralism: it’s known as ‘multi-cultural’, ‘multi-faith’ and ‘secular’ society and states. In Europe, ‘the clash of civilisations’ took on the form of a neo-racist and neo-fascist movements – with the most prominent political crisis caused by the Presidential run-off in France with the National Front leader Le Pen. The degradation and regression of democracy through such a sectarian political position has weakened the cause of liberal democracy. Champions of progress need to reclaim this ground away from the populist, governmental and mass movement ‘clash of civilisation’/racist supporters and reclaim a strongly pluralist democracy at a political and cultural/faith/secular level. Freedom of the individual and freedom of the minority/oppressed groups is at the heart of a modern democracy. This principle has to be fought for in the West as well as in the East, North and South.

Cultural pluralism is a very positive development in the world. It is enriching in terms of cultural renaissance in the world. It empowers people across different continents, whose ancestors have been subject to Western imperialism. Cultural uniformity hides a racist agenda. It is also not sustainable in terms of real global trends such as the development of emerging and developing economies.

The notion of the Rainbow Coalition is an attempt to create a movement based on progress (i.e. freedom of the individual and freedom of the minority/oppressed groups) and pluralism (cultural pluralism, multi-faith and multi-cultural/ secular society and state). It seeks to route out intolerance based on genuine cultural differences and different beliefs without seeking to divide humanity or endorse reactionary views.

Dynamic cultural fusions and mixes are part of a creative and rich world at ease with difference. The different dimensions and experiential perspectives and histories of humanity are not negated. They are affirmed within the framework of the recognition of the universality of humanity with equal human rights. They acknowledge the progressive traditions of different societies. Technology and science is acknowledged to be a global inheritance across different societies.

The monopoly of the West and Christianity over the notion of civilization, progressive, scientific and humanist tradition is ended. A new phase of history is opened up whereby all human contribution across different parts of the world is recognized as precious and celebrated in a very positive and public way. There is an equality of worth given to human beings across the planet as individuals and groups.

Strategic Mistake Three

3. Modern Capitalism and the Modern State in late 20th and early 21st century.

Equally, I believe that a strategic mistake has been made on the relationship between capitalism and the modern state. Capitalism has triumphed across the world as an economic system based on the role of the market as the dynamic element in economic progress. The evidence on this is overwhelming. Soviet Union and East Europe gave up state communist economics, but so did China. One of the reasons for the success of China has been its wholesale adoption of the capitalist market system in the management of the economy. Instead of fighting a cold war on the economic front, it created an alliance with Western capitalism through a complex system of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), etc. Russia still has a cold war mindset on economic relations with Western companies, apart from its own failures to create adequate institutional arrangements for the legal functioning of capitalism in a fair way. North Korea is the only major state communist state reliant on military exports and denial of terrible hardships (e.g. mass famines) faced by its own people.

State socialist economics also suffered a major setback across the world. Nationalisation of industries has been discredited and state control of the economy to engineer self-sufficiency has shown to have failed. In the UK, this policy was abandoned by Labour (right and Blairite) and attacked by the Conservatives through a wave of privatization under Margaret Thatcher. In other places, it was abandoned in different political circumstances. In 1991, India abandoned this policy faced with humiliation of its economic failure – and adopted both increasing liberal internal market and free trade policies. There is a broad consensus on this (despite some emergency nationalization of the banks during the period of the recession).

However, there has been a critical debate on the merits of ‘Anglo-Saxon Capitalism’ (USA/UK) and European continental capitalism. I do not dismiss the arguments and I do not have some reactive positions. However, my starting point is not small state (although efficient expenditure practices and prudent use of tax policy should be ruthless pursued). My starting point is that the capitalist state has triumphed because of the success of its welfare and institutional legal frameworks. As I argue in one of my previous articles, there was a cross-party consensus during the most dynamic period of UK capitalism (the Industrial Revolution) that social and democratic reforms were part and parcel of a free market and free trade economy: Disraeli (Conservative) and Gladstone (Liberal) both supported very high levels of activity to civilize capitalism. In the US, there has been many phases of capitalist development. The late 19th century saw very tough controls on abuse such as the Sherman Anti-Trust measures of 1890. Germany during Bismarck introduced huge levels of insurance. All these measures showed that classical liberal capitalism was made civilized for the population and the worst features (callous) of the free market were eliminated prior to the arrival of the State Communist economics or State Socialism economics. There is a very rich tradition of Western capitalism seeking to introduce human progress measures to improve the full lives of people through the democratic state.

Strategic Mistake Four

4. Free Market Economics –The Human Progress Mission of Capitalism

‘Economics’ by The Economist magazine, the champion of free market economics in Europe, states that classical liberal free markets economics does not preclude different active welfare policies as well as active state interventions. I believe “a callous capitalism” arose in the West, through a series of confused policy thinking, based on trying to address real issues of the failures left behind by state communist and state socialist economics. The level of strategic misdirection caused by this trajectory of some bits of neoconservative economics has been extremely damaging to thinking about 21st century economics.

Economics is the servant of society and not its master. As a servant of society, economics has to deliver human progress through its economic policies and strategies. During the recent recession in the UK – monetary and Keynesian instruments were used - to mitigate the damages of the contagion, protecting people for a transitional period, proving loans to businesses, helping homeowners, stopping people losing their homes, seeking to develop new economic projects including pumping in some money for infrastructure, etc. Human progress requires helping people in trouble. So this exercise was well worth it.

The green critique of the damage to natural resources by specific types of over-use and danger its poses to the planet and humanity is very positive. Its solutions are based on notions of equity and lower consumption models in developing countries. Capitalism must be based on science and strategic thinking rather than just short-terms trends. The future of the planet is of interest to all those who inhabit the planet.

However, my view is that neoconservative economic models are ‘callous’ and not effective. They will give capitalism a bad name and not produce dynamic economies. They identify some good things in society to protect people suffering hardship and want to attack them.

I believe that the basic model of free markets has to be based on the state protecting human progress in society. I also believe that the state has some role in providing a basic infrastructure for a modern society. This is an enabling and active role for the state. For instance, France has been good at building great railways through the state. It also managed to develop a very substantial energy infrastructure. These are the duties of the modern state.

The democratic state has the right to stop abuses by capitalism to defend the consumers, shareholders, state funds and to save capitalism from its own failures. There has to be a debate based on evidence and it may be that short-term selling has to heavily regulated (e.g. stop hedge funds try to destroy economies in order to purely enrich themselves by adopting anti-competitive behaviour). Modern capitalism must feel the pain of the people as responsible corporate members of society. They can be part of the solutions. However, callous capitalism has to be stopped by the state.

Strategic Mistake Five

5. Global Multi-Cultural Capitalism Today

Finally, modern day capitalism has become global capitalism. This has made a breakthrough for the developed/emerging economies in the world economy. Although even now, the world economy is still heavily based on the West (US and EU transactions are huge), there is a really powerful new set of world economies emerging. I have met so much denial of this reality of a plurality of global economic centres in the world economy amongst high level public policy makers, I worry that they will make another set of strategic blunders and take us down another blind ally.

The most powerful emerging economies, China and India, survived the recession with strong positive growth rates. China and some Middle East states are global holders of vast surplus funds and sovereign funds. Latin America and Africa also have strong emerging states.

This is multi-cultural global capitalism. A new set of alliances are needed at a global arena and a new set of complex principles are needed to engage with trade with dictators such as China – respecting their cultural difference and right to develop for its billions of people – but not respecting its dictatorship or its attempt to bully the world (e.g. its Asian neighbours).

I am glad that Forbes has shown that ‘multi-cultural capitalism’ exists on a global scale with dollar billionaires from all part of the world – with most new ones from Asian and emerging economies. This is an opportunity to reaffirm that ‘multi-cultural global society’ we live in.

When billions of people are escaping poverty (specifically in emerging economies), I expect the whole world to celebrate. The world economy has a new layer being added to it. With all it challenges, it does represent progress ofr humanity. Equally, there is a ‘multi-cultural poor people of the world’ with half the world living on less than $2 per day.

The conscience of capitalism should always be active. Progress must be sought everywhere. Our world is so far from perfect. We must draw in several billion into the world economy. Only when we have reached that goal and we have established pluralism in all corners of the world, can we say that there is an end to normal history of scarcity and an end to human repression. We can then use the term, ‘End of History’, without any hesitation.

Copyright Atma Singh 2010

History and Progress

Summary: The stereotype of West as totally progresive and the East as totally reactionary is based on a mis-reading of complex history. This article shows the weaknesses of this stereotype. It concludes with an appeal to a broader reading of history to challenge narrow-mindedness in the West and East to regain the progressive traditions across the world.

I want to expand my concept of 'progressive capitalism' by looking at some historical evidence.

I want to look at 'progress' in this piece.

I want to concentrate on the argument about the West being perfectly progressive in this piece and its implied or explicit view that other people have not been progressive at all.

Understanding progress is part of the process of clearly understanding the concept of 'progressive capitalism' on a global scale.

I want to tackle the false argument of some of the supporters of the ideological model of 'clash of civilisations' of some Western thinkers and their defence of Western arrogance/racism on the basis that it is a progressive and, therefore, universalist.

The argument of this school is based on a proposition that Western societies are absolutely progressive and that all other societies are relatively regressive (and non-Christian religions practice moral relativism).

I have two criticisms of this argument.

The first major argument is based on the limitations of Western progress (based on judging its perfections) and the historical evidence that the West has not been consistently progress and has had major (and not minor) phases of reactionary and barbaric history. This leads to reactionary directions in current public policy. On a fundamental level, it has led to deeply flawed and reactionary readings of capitalist economic system government management and public policy narratives with negative consequences for the Western public policy leadership on economic and social policy e.g. leadership during the recession and poverty.

The second major argument is that it is based on denying the progressive character of non-Western societies in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Latin America. This involves the deliberate denial of the progressive history of the different continents of the world. It also involves a distortion of the ideological progressive content of these societies including a distortion of the progressive content of non-Christian religions.

I believe that this has caused major failures in public policy towards emerging and developing countries as well as created an environment of xenophobic protectionism and nationalism at different levels in Western societies damaging global trade and modernisation of Western societies. This threatens to lead to the internal destruction of Western social progress through poor public policy leadership.

It has also distorted Western foreign policy thinking and objectives as well as narrowing the management of citizenship and immigration issues. This leads to two distortions: management of the interface and relationships between the West and the rest of the world and management of the interface between colour/religion and citizenship/immigration.

PART 1

REACTIONARY ASPECTS OF WESTERN WORLD HISTORY

I do not want to present comprehensive historical evidence, but to illustrate my point that there has been no unilinear upwards spiral of Western progress. The reactionary and barbaric elements have neither been small-scale nor irrelavant to modern policy discussions.

The first example is the rise of Nazism and fascism in Europe and its conquest of most of Europe. This was clearly a reactionary and barbaric movement. The consequences of this reactionary event was the Second World War.

The rise of neo-Nazi and racist political movements in Europe shows that its has not ceased to be an issue even in modern Europe.

The case that Europe is wholly progressive requires the distortion of this evidence. So the arguments of the reactionary far-right movements that they are based on progressive ideas of freedom are a distortion. They are part of European culture, but its most reactionary and barbaric historical aspect. Concessions to such far-right movements by governments is not necessarily rational in terms of public policy, but it is based on seeking to mobilise a reactionary aspect of Europe.

The second example is based on the US. Even during a period of immense progress, the US had a 'blind' side to progress. From its foundation until the Civil War, the US openly practised slavery based on the colour of a person's skin, so the claim to be universalist was not true. From the Civil War to the end of segregation in the 1960s, the US practised the denial of constitutional, voting and equal rights to black people based on the colour of the skin. The US was not universalist and progressive within its own borders. There was a reactionary and barbaric aspect to US society.

The third example is the issue of European colonialism. European governments were in competition to establish conquest of territories in other parts of the world - across vast parts of the world. The conquest of the territories involved a racist denial of people of those countries to participate in the government.

A reactionary history seeks to rewrite this to paint it as the West being 'progressive'. This creates a barrier to progressive mindsets in the Western world and a barrier to forge effective and positive relationships with developing and emerging economies. It hides one of the biggest failures in the world: global poverty and effective solutions to it.

The fourth example is the constant genocidal persecution of some minority groups in European history such as the Jewish people and Roma (called 'Gypsies' in a pejorative sense). This shows that the Nazi holocaust was not exceptional to European history, but it had historical precedents in previous behaviour in European societies.

The fifth example is not often cited by the left, but I also see it as part of European society. This is the example of Stalinism (based on Leninist dictatorship and Marxist moral relativism) with a huge wave of massacres and also political repression.

The sixth example I want to give is about the support for military dictatorships across the world by US in the post-war period across Asia, Latin America, to some extent in Middle East, to a much lesser extent in Africa where Europe was the dominant 'outside' power. The US also backed radical Islamist movements in places such as Afghanistan.

The last example I want to give is about the Christian history in Europe and USA also. The Inquisition was persecution, gruesome torture and putting to death of dissenters or even bystanders. The church has apologised for it. However, it disproves the argument that Christianity has always been tolerant. The persecution, torture and putting to death of women in the 'Witchcraft' trials in Europe and US shows that women were not exempt from religious persecution and cruelty.

There are too many more examples available (such as apartheid, genocide against native peoples, etc. etc. etc.) to disprove the argument of Western unilinear upwards spiralling of progress.

The scale of failures was huge, but there have been many more examples of such failure on smaller scale too. There are recent examples too.

However, this does not invalidate the magnitude of the progress made in the West:

*Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome (as foundational historical elements to European civilisation)

*Renaissance as a movement for humanist view of the world with its scientific critical thinking (even its more liberal attitude towards nudity)

*Reformation (a revolutionary critique of religious practices) leading to the formation of the liberal church in the West including its religious tolerance element

*Enlightenment as a challenge to the order of absolute rule through monarchy and a challenge to the superstition elements of religion through rationalism

*Magna Carta in England - basic rights of people as citizens (albeit for only the noble elite of society)

*English Revolution - establishing the sovereignty of Parliament over the monarchy as well as challening the monarchy in a revolutionary way (nothing less than beheading the King)

*French Revolution - democratic and univeralist (even on a racial level)

*US revolution - democratic and anti-colonial (the first independence from British colonialism carried out by white progressive people)

* UK Industrial Revolution

*European Industrial Revolution

*US Industrial Revolution

*UK welfare state

*European welfare state ( through different measures)

*US welfare measures ( although health debate has only raised this focus now)

*1960s 'sexual revolution' - individual freedom in the sexual sphere -

women's rights over their bodies, lesbian and gay rights, etc.

*Civil Rights - racial minorities as equal citizens

*Rights of children including against child abuse

*Multi-cultural and multi-faith societies in the West

*Green Movement and Global Poverty Movement

ETC.

The dominant progressive drivers of Western societies cannot wipe out its reactionary and barbaric elements.

Not to learn the lessons of history is to repeat them - as I have illustrated with the failure to tackle anti-Jewish and anti-Roma holocausts resulted in the Nazi holocaust - and now we have a re-emergence of far-right movements in Europe and a racist anti-Obama element in the US.

PART 2 PROGRESSIVE ASPECTS OF DEVELOPING/EMERGING WORLD HISTORY

There are many ways of obtaining historical evidence for the progressive aspects of developing/emerging world history.

I want to start from the easily-available evidence and move towards more complex evidence.

There are many benefits in understanding such history e.g. relationship building in global trade.

The first positive thing we have is evidence through 'historical awareness movements' such as:

Contribution of Africa to World Civilisation;

Contribution of India to World civilisation;

Contribution of China..;

Contribution of Islam...;

Contribution of Mayan Civilisation;

Contribution of Jewish History;

Contribution of Roma History;

etc.

The second is contribution to x, y, z civilisation to science e.g. Islam to science, India to science, China to science, etc.

The third is contribution to x, y, z civilisation to culture e.g. Jews to culture, Latin Americans to culture, African to culture, etc.

There are many great authors who have carried out such academic work - from histories of civilisations, science, culture, literature, music, etc.

Professor Angus Maddison has provided economic data to show that the West became the dominant sphere in economic terms only very recently (mid-19th century) and that previously for nearly two millennia it was India and China that was dominant.

India and China became unified states more than two thousand years ago, whereas Western national unification has been very recent ( e.g. UK early 18th century, US late 18th century, Italian unification 'risorgimento' in 19th century, German reunification 19th century, etc).

There has been big and large empires of the developing/emerging world too (e.g. Zhengis Khan's Mongolian family empire across most of Asia and some parts of Europe, Ottomon Empire, etc).

The major question in relation to progressive movements is about the progressive philosophical/religious movements of the developing/emerging world.

Here there has been a revisionism by historians of the developing/emerging parts of the world. They have sought to deny progressive aspects and also turn the progressives into reactionary aspects.

There are many examples.

Karen Armstrong provides one attempt to highlight the progressive aspects of different religions including those of India (such as Hinduism), Middle East (Islam, Judaism), Far East (Confucianism, etc).

Buddhism was a very revolutionary movement in India based on egalitarian ideas and rejection of caste and other ideas. It produced huge successes in India including the rule of Asoka - who embraces its pacificism and progress.

I have written about Sikhism and highlighted its progressive character. Sikhism also had a powerful relationship with the Bhakti and Sufi movements based on the their advocacy of One God, One Humanity. The Bhakti movement was all-India movement and had a time span of many centuries. So it was not a small, isloated example of progress.

I also strongly disagree with a reactionary revisionist interpretation of Confucianism given by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore to justify his authoritarian rule. Confuciansm was a humanist movement in Asia where the human was critical. It legacy over two thousand ago was to introduce in to the selection of government officials the practice of 'selection by examination' rather than by birth. This was a form of revolutionary equality.

There is also a very powerful and strong scientific and rationalist tradition in Islam, which revisionist schools seek to deny and write-out. There is also a very powerful humanist school in Islam. So there were different schools of Islam in the Middle East and across the world (including very powerful progressive schools which were dominant in many periods).

Equally, there are schools of reform and social progress in history which sought to use Western progress to create progress in Asia ( e.g. Japanese Meiji movement of political, economic, social and scientific modernisation in late 19th century, which enabled Japanese modern economic take-off to occur earlier than other Asian countries). So while the rest of Asia was economically declining or under colonial rule, Japan used Western ideas to propel itself forward.

In China, the Movement for the Heavenly Kingdom was a very progressive Christian movement seeking to reform China's society and modernise it in mid-late 19th century.

The real failure across the developing/emerging world was to translate the progress into a sustainable form - and then critically modernise philosophically/culturally, socially, politically and economically at the right time and on a large scale.

Colonialism was a product of the failure of the East in terms of modernisation and unity and a success of the West in terms of ideas as well as economics.

Most people have some knowledge of the independence movements of the developing and merging countries.

They were progressive on a large scale with ideas about non-sectarian unity and secular forms of government, economic modernisation, women's and minority rights and equality, support for science, reaffirmation of the positive character of their own culture and its contribution to world civilisation etc.

The progressive energy and achievements of this movement are also denied by revisionist sectarian historians in their own countries and revisionist writers in the West, who want to extol the virtues of the colonial rule.

I do not not want to go into the limitations of these movements in terms of their economic policy which led to the failures of their social policy and modernisation plans prior to their recent renewal. I will address that question in another note on 'Progress and Capitalism'.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the the West was very was very successful in its progressive strides and it did benefit the world, it was not possible to overlook the reactionary and barbaric facets of the West including in its 20th century history to learn the lessons for future public policy. The overlooking of these facets gives a false view of the West which is translated into an attempt to assert an arrogant narrative into international relations and public policy in the West.

Equally, the progressive facets of the developing/emerging world need to be highlighted to get a balanced view of the character of these societies and to enable a stronger foundation for unity of the progressive movement in the world.

The powerful role played by emerging/developing economies during the global recession of 2008-2009 shows that the need to understand the societies of these countries in a much stronger way. There is enough evidence of very strong progressive movements to counter the stereotype proposed by the new reactionary proponents of Western domination and clash of civilisations.

I believe in the unity and development of the 'progressive forces' of the world in order to improve human societies and to develop modern governments. I also believe in the equality of worth of all human beings. This is a progressive tradition of both the West and emerging/ developing societies. We have to overcome ignorance to realise this. We have to think in new paradigms for the 21st century.

Copyright Atma Singh 2010

The Three Revolutions

Summary:

This short peice seeks to locate the progress in the West on a strategic historical level.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were three revolutions that transformed the West and made it a powerful localtion and global influence on human progress:

The Religious Revolution in the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolution. This asserted the right to challenge the distorted views of any religion on science and the monopoly of any one religious view. This gave rise to enlightenment and religious pluralism.

Scientific thinking became a key tool for modern thinking. tolerance of different beliefs became the foundation of co-existence of religious differences and non-religious differences in the modern world.It led to the rational view os modern humanism based on the equality of all people in the world.

The Political Revolution in the English, French and American Revolutions created the concept of the 'sovereignty' of the people.This laid the basis for questioning absolute rule (of the monarchy or colonial power) and opened the door to all classes having rights in political rule and opened the door to pluralist democracies and the multi-party system.

The Economic Revolution in the England, Europe, and US, which used science and technology on a mass scale to enable economic take-off of modern societies. This opened the door to the creation of modern infrastructures and the welfare state.

I do not believe that the West has monopoly on any of these areas. However, lack of religious pluralism or the distorted views of science of any religion is a basis for my criticism of any society in the modern world.

I do not believe that the West has a monopoly on the cause of the 'sovereignty of the people' with its pluralist democracies and the multi-party system. However, lack of these is a basis of my criticism of any society and country in the modern world.

I do not believe that the West has a monopoly on economic and social progress with a modern infrastructures and the welfare state. However, lack of these is the basis of my criticism of any society in the modern world.

I believe the whole world has the right to all three revolutions made in the West: the Religious, the Political and the Economic.

Equally, I believe these concepts are not unique to the West.

There have been powerful and successful struggles for religious pluralism and scientific thinking, for 'the sovereignty of the people' with pluralist democracies and the multi-party system and economic and social progress with a modern infrastructure and welfare state in the continents of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Human progress is not inherent to the West and nor can the West make a monopoly claim to progress in history of civilisations. Across Asia, Africa and Latin America, great movements and civilisation of progress existed. There were some forms of religious pluralism and a challenge to religion distorting science in all parts of the world.

Japan achieved all three revolutions in a very complex and unique way ( including just copying the West).

India has achieved the political revolution with a developing religious and economic revolution.

China is achieving the economic revolution with a partial religious (i.e. not letting religion distort science and a slight religious pluralism) revolution and no political revolution (although it was attempted).

Dubai has an economic revolution without any serious religious or political revolution.

Combining the three revolutions is the heart of the matter. One revolution is not enough. All three have to be achieved to become really modern societies.

This means a massive battle has to take place in developing and emerging countries over all hese questions. An critical cheering of progress is not enough.

However, equally progress in the West can never be taken for granted and has to be fought for all the time.

Fascism in Europe and racial segregation in US in the 20th century shows that brutal and evil reactionary attitudes are possible.

Equally, Europe had widespread racist imperialism in the early 20th century with people of Asia, Africa and Latin America denied basic rights to non-white people on the basis of the colour of the skin.

The West is not inherently progressive. There has to be a constant fight for progress.

However, the massive progress in the West has to be seen and appreciated and increased - and attacks on progress understood and strategies formed to counter them.

Concept of Progressive Capitalism

The concept of 'Progressive Capitalism' is a central part of my vision and thinking. It is a framework for historical analysis and a predictive and strategic model for thinking about the future.

The concept is elastic in some ways. It also has an internal dynamism and creative tension by the use of the terms 'progressive' and 'capitalism' together.

By the way, I also sometimes use the terms such 'ethical globalisation', 'capitalism with a conscience'. 'humane capitalism',etc. in a similar way to the concept 'progressive capitalism'.

It has a capacity to be over-arching and fundamental to thinking about the modern world.

The concept of 'progress' is my perspective - which can go back over time by performing a historical analysis function in terms of human and natural development.

It can embrace many fields such as scientific knowledge, philosophical and religious thinking, creative arts and culture as well as social and economic development.

It can be used to explain a system - 'modern capitalism'. It be be used as a tool in public policy development. It can also be used a vehicle for modern political thought and positioning.

I use it also in a definitional sense to counter negative ideas and practices.

For instance, I see progressive thinking and humane public policy as central to capitalism as a modern economic system and do not subscribe to a religious or politically/economically reactionary view of modern public policy and science.

I also see pluralism and social liberalism as important (e.g. progressive ideas about sex and relationships, pluralism in society, importance of liberty and freedom in the modern public and private space).

The concept of 'capitalism' is my perspective on modern economic system and policy and its strategic position.

Although, I am open to thinking about 'profit' as a motivation, I use the concept is a very wide and also in a technical sense.

In the wide sense, I use it to refer to the accumulation of resources and their deployment for social/ individual gain. Terms such as economic capital, human capital, knowledge capital, etc. express this in a popular way familiar to modern society.

In a technical sense, I also use it as a way to express modern 'legal' relationships and dynamics based on the right of the individual to own property/land and the right of people to sell or not sell labour in a free way.

For instance:

I can use the concept of capitalism to describe what really happens in real capitalism economies.

I believe that the freedom of capitalism is based on freedom of the individual/legal group( e.g. company) to take risk based on their existing resources to accumulate more resources. The free market of capitalism is based on this creative freedom for the individual and group. In this sense, it is very dynamic.

For instance:

I can use the concept of 'progressive capitalism' to analyse historical trends.

In terms of current affairs, I want to use historical argument to show that some interpretations of capitalism are very distorted e.g. a reactionary notion of capitalism as a system that removes government's role in developing humane and progressive societies. I also want to show why this would be startegic error and to use it to show the damage it can do to economic growth and development of the world economy.

I also want it to explain why the 'Communist economic model' (and to a very different extent the 'state socialist planning model') has failed especially with Russia and to a greater extent in a global sense China ditching this model.

I will use this for my professional work as a public policy analyst and strategic managment and leader as well as in my professional work as a lecturer, trainer and public speaker. As a expert on international political economy, I can use the concept to explain a wide range of modern ideas including socio-economic and political formation. I will also use this framework for my public policy and strategic management thinking on London as a world class city and a specific form of capital city government.

Copyright Atma Singh 2010

Liberal Capitalism

Liberal and Neoliberal Economy Policy in Modern Capitalism

There is an economic crisis in Europe and the UK. There is a massive economic debate erupting and turning into a major public debate. From Greece to the UK and to Spain and Portugal, there is a real set of major differences on economic policy. Most of this is posed as a left versus right debate. I think this is false.

I want to contribute to this debate by drawing a simple distinction to indicate two strands of thinking on this issue.

In my view, there is a distinction between liberal and neoliberal economic policy.

Liberal economic policy sees the free market as a dynamic entity in creating a progressive and caring society. Neoliberal economic policy sees people as mere pawns in the capitalist game of callous exploitation without morals.

There has been evidence that state-run economies do not work

For example:

• Soviet and Eastern European state economies simply collapsed. They were insulated from any healthy internal free market competition or global free trade competition. Once the state protection was removed, they were shown to be hollow shells in many ways with huge weaknesses.
• UK had to ditch its industrial nationalisation policy because this was taking money out of the growth sectors of the economy to prop up industries against global competition in a way that was clearly failing e.g. supporting the car industry, shipbuilding, etc. through massive state funding and support. Free markets worked better and enabled a transition to a more services orientated UK economy.
• So I see it as positive that China realised the failure of its state communism economic policy and adopted the free market mechanism to unleash dynamism in its economy under the Den Xiao Ping. This has led to the economic take-off in China.
• Equally, India unleashed its free market by abolishing some major features of the 'license raj' (bureaucratic government control of every facet of economic and business activity) and also undertook free trade reforms by opening up the Indian markets to the world.
• However, equally there is considerable evidence that full free market policies do not work – markets without the use of some state intervention for welfare, social progress and even economic modernisation and during times of recession, job creation and economic stimulus. During periods of economic recession, free markets can have devastating impacts and totally destroy an economy. There is considerable evidence for this, so economic policy needs to be based on examining this evidence.
• The first major example of poor full market policy was the Great Depression of the USA in the 1930s, where the lack of state-run economic stimulus turned a recession into a total depression. Free market policies made the situation worse. After the failure of 'full free market' policies (i.e. neoliberal policies), the government of Franklin D Roosevelt intervened to create an economic stimulus (New Deal) based on state-funded spending on major national projects needed in the USA (e.g. infrastructure development) and created support for employment measures. The UK also suffered a Recession/ Depression by its pursuit of poor economic policies attached to the Gold Standard (another version of neoliberal policy) under Lord Phillip Snowdon.
• In the post-war period, neoliberal policies were tried in the third world/ developing world imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through structural adjustment programmes - this is similar to the policy being proposed now by the new Chancellor, George Osborne. They proved to be a major failure. Even supporters of classical economics such as The Economist admitted these policies failed in the late 1990s.
• “Every so often The Economist changes its mind. The first principle on which it relies (liberties should always be guarded; markets lightly regulated) cannot always be applied without second thoughts. The unimpeded flow of capital across borders is one such case. Letting people move their money around as they see fit, rather than penning it within national boundaries, would seem a matter of both liberty and efficiency. But cosmopolitan capital has caused unimaginable mischief in one emerging market after another in recent years: Mexico in 1994, East Asia in 1997-1998, Russia in 1998, Brazil in 1999 (and again in 2002), turkey in 2000-2001, and Argentina and Uruguay in 2001-02. As the first article says, ‘It is enough to make a good liberal stop and think’.” (p97 'Economics: Making Sense of the Modern Economy' (edited by Simon Cox) 2nd Edition The Economist and Profile Books in 1996 and 2006.)
• This policy is being implemented in Europe now. The ‘Eurozone’ economies are trying to implement neoliberal economic policies. This is causing untold suffering to people and destroying the quality of lives of millions of people and pushing them into poverty (possibly extreme poverty). Greece has started implementing such a policy. Spain and the UK are embarking on such a policy.
• Europe and USA (like Japan) have faced a major recession. Its key economic sectors have been found to be vulnerable. UK too has faced this crisis. There has been a policy of economic stimulus creating larger budget deficits.
• These deficits are structural because they are based on long term issues about the economies. High levels of consumption are a vital ingredient for the developed economies - and a part of this has been done through macro and micro economic borrowing (e.g. individuals using credit cards and national economies accumulating deficits). The suppliers of this consumption have been producer economies (for want of a bit of simplification) such as the emerging economies (e.g. China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Russia, Middle East economies etc). They have economic surpluses on a national level with strong sovereign funds and a big culture of savings (based on high economic growth rates and high interest rates for borrowers).
• The surpluses and deficits reflect changes to the world economy. New economies are dynamic as they need high growth rates for economic take-off. UK and US were also highly dynamic during their economic take-off periods (e.g. Industrial Revolution in UK during Victorian era and Great Transformation in US during early 20th century). Now the Western economies and Japan have become mature economies with slower economic growth rates when they are in normal growth periods. In contrast, the emerging economies have very high growth rates. Part of this growth is based on vast population numbers involved in the economic growth (e.g. billion plus in China and India, hundreds of millions in many other countries like Brazil), partly because they require vast new levels of infrastructure (there is a lot of catch-up to do with advanced/developed economies in terms of even basic infrastructure) and partly because there is a high-level of demand for scarce resources (e.g. energy prices such as oil, gas and commodities such as minerals).
• Mature economies do not require the same level of growth as developing economies and to some extent they will never be able to compete on costs for many items of production or services. For instance, Japan has had two decades of zero and little growth, but it has sill developed its economy in a fairly healthy way (e.g. Japanese car production has overtaken US car production and there has been a set of very sensible social policies to provide a comprehensive service for the elderly). My point is that there is not a life and death choice for the economies, as suggested by neoliberal advocates.
• The deficits in the UK or US and in European economies require long term approaches rather than IMF style shock therapies on the models of the Structural Adjustment Policies. Shock therapies have appalling records in terms of economic growth for the economies (creating an unnecessary depression and collapse) and for human beings (losing jobs on a large scale and large scale reductions in the standards of livings). So I think a slower approach is a serious alternative.
• There are some flies that go to bright lights - and in the process get killed by the heat. They do not understand that they have an option and a need to avoid such a thing. Neoliberal economics is very poor economics.
• To quote from The Economist book on Economics again:
• “ it is essential to understand one point from the outset. The liberal case for globalization is emphatically not the case for domestic or international laisser-faire. Liberalism lays down no certainties about the requirements of social justice in terms of income redistribution or the extent of the welfare state. It recognizes that markets have their limits, for instance in tending to supply of public goods (such as clean environment). A liberal outlook is consistent with support for a wide range of government interventions; indeed a liberal outlook demands many such interventions.” (p5)

I would argue that in the foundation of the modern Britain, liberal and not neoliberal economic policy was responsible for the biggest peaks of economic take-off and growth. Both William E Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli advocated liberal economics during the Victorian era – with social measures to alleviate poverty and reduce social inequality. There were reforms on a vast scale. David Lloyd George also followed this pattern and established the basis of the modern welfare state. There was a similar policy under the ‘One Nation’ Conservatives of Harold MacMillan and Sir Alec Douglas Home in the post war period and under Edward Heath too.

I support liberal economics (and not statist economies). The Labour Party under Clement Atlee did adopt a nationalisation programme, which was statist, but it also did a huge amount to establish the modern welfare state including the flagship National Health Service with free health care for all on the basis of need and not the ability to pay. Harold Wilson and James Callaghan as Labour Prime Ministers did also suffer from the statist policy of nationalisation, but Harold Wilson did try to develop a modern industrial policy of using science and technology to improve economic growth. The range of policy options for liberal economics can range from low consumption models (e.g. from of Green economics), to Keynesian models (e.g. Obama type of model) to soft Keynesian of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (with low regulation and strong social intervention and some levels of low-level state interventions to assist the economy).

I favour a strongly egalitarian social policy - seeking to enable everyone to looked-after in an economy. Liberal economics are the not the same as neoliberal economics to me.

I think this is a necessary debate in the UK and Europe.

I believe the neoliberal policies can destroy many European economies without any real need. I feel that a broader discussion is needed on how to reconfigure UK and European economies in the post-recession period. A depression is a danger that should be avoided through an intelligent debate and focus on the growth models required in mature developed economies.

Liberal economic policies can lead to a better society – and a range of responses to a recession or immediate post-recession period to manage such a perilous situation without imposing unnecessary pain and creating a jobs-based economic growth.

Liberal policies are needed in the Eurozone and UK. Neoliberal policies are a mistaken response to the recession and post-recession economic crisis.

Concept of Progressive Capitalism

The concept of 'Progressive Capitalism' is a central part of my vision and thinking. It is a framework for historical analysis and a predictive and strategic model for thinking about the future.

The concept is elastic in some ways. It also has an internal dynamism and creative tension by the use of the terms 'progressive' and 'capitalism' together.

By the way, I also sometimes use the terms such 'ethical globalisation', 'capitalism with a conscience'. 'humane capitalism',etc. in a similar way to the concept 'progressive capitalism'.

It has a capacity to be over-arching and fundamental to thinking about the modern world.

The concept of 'progress' is my perspective - which can go back over time by performing a historical analysis function in terms of human and natural development.

It can embrace many fields such as scientific knowledge, philosophical and religious thinking, creative arts and culture as well as social and economic development.

It can be used to explain a system - 'modern capitalism'. It be be used as a tool in public policy development. It can also be used a vehicle for modern political thought and positioning.

I use it also in a definitional sense to counter negative ideas and practices.

For instance, I see progressive thinking and humane public policy as central to capitalism as a modern economic system and do not subscribe to a religious or politically/economically reactionary view of modern public policy and science.

I also see pluralism and social liberalism as important (e.g. progressive ideas about sex and relationships, pliralism in society, importance of liberty and freedom in the modern public and private space).

The concept of 'capitalism' is my perspective on modern economic system and policy and its strategic position.

Although, I am open to thinking about 'profit' as a motivation, I use the concept is a very wide and also in a technical sense.

In the wide sense, I use it to refer to the accumulation of resources and their deployment for social/ individual gain. Terms such as economic capital, human capital, knowledge capital, etc. express this in a popular way familiar to modern society.

In a technical sense, I also use it as a way to express modern 'legal' relationships and dynamics based on the right of the individual to own property/land and the right of people to sell or not sell labour in a free way.

For instance:

I can use the concept of capitalism to describe what really happens in real capitalism economies.

I believe that the freedom of capitalism is based on freedom of the individual/legal group( e.g. company) to take risk based on their existing resources to accumulate more resources. The free market of capitalism is based on this creative freedom for the individual and group. In this sense, it is very dynamic.

For instance:

I can use the concept of 'progressive capitalism' to analyse historical trends.

In terms of current affairs, I want to use historical argument to show that some interpretations of capitalism are very distorted e.g. a reactionary notion of capitalism as a system that removes government's role in developing humane and progressive societies. I also want to show why this would be strategic error and to use it to show the damage it can do to economic growth and development of the world economy.

I also want it to explain why the 'Communist economic model' (and to a very different extent the 'state socialist planning model') has failed especially with Russia and to a greater extent in a global sense China ditching this model.

I will use this for my professional work as a public policy analyst and strategic managment and leader as well as in my professional work as a lecturer, trainer and public speaker. As a expert on international political economy, I can use the concept to explain a wide range of modern ideas including socio-economic and political formation. I will also use this framework for my public policy and strategic management thinking on London as a world class city and a specific form of capital city government.

Copyright Atma Singh 2010

Stereotyping Capitalism Is Bad For Strategic Thinking

Summary

The energy of capitalism cannot be easily contained. It has a long history of an intrinsic connection with free ideas and freedom of people as well as an intrinsic deep connection with democracy and the social welfare of people – often led by these vast scale ideas. I do not think it is right to see capitalism in a stereotyped way.

Introduction

I believe that strategic thinking and public policy has to be based on conceptual clarity, a firm grasp of historical facts and events, objective analysis of the current situation and on examining future potential and possibilities. It should not be based on a stereotyping of capitalism. The two main stereotypes of capitalism see it as the root of all evil and see it as a system for ruthless exploitation without a conscience.

The danger of stereotyping capitalism is the impact it can have on restricting strategic thinking into myopic routes and restricting public policy choices by following these myopic routes. I believe that broadening of strategic thinking and looking at wider public policy options can lead to better government on a national and international level.

I want to look at a few examples of the behaviour of capitalism in its development and its present day to show that broader thinking can open up strategic thinking and public policy making. My strategic framework is ‘ethical globalisation’ with its recognition of the dynamism of capitalism at a global level and the need for progress on questions of social welfare issues, political freedoms, environmental concerns and cultural issues to create a more ‘humane’ world. In this framework, it is important to examine capitalism in a multi-dimensional way. This is not designed to be a definite assessment of capitalism, but an exploration of it to examine some of its stereotypes and to seek to question them.

The proposition I want to make is that, contrary to the cynics of the left and right (who judge only on the basis of materialism in some Marxist and free market schools), there is strong evidence that capitalism was built on a foundation of a vast sweep of modern ideas, which expanded the space for critical scientific, cultural, social and governmental thinking. I term this ‘idealism’ – although it encompasses the richness of science, the elevation of the cultural imagination, the power of the social movement, the depth of commitment of religious beliefs and the political freedom to challenge the power of the powerful.

I have not sought to cover the whole history of capitalism or even its full global picture. I will explore the relationship of capitalism to different continents in future article. This article concentrates on European and American capitalism. I have used a number of historical references to make my argument: Renaissance; Enlightenment and Democratic Revolutions; Industrial Revolution; American War of Independence; Race Issues in American History; Racist Nationalism in Europe; Communism and Capitalism; and finally American Imperialism.

Renaissance

Renaissance Europe, from the C14^th to C17th was a period of the emergent modern ideas. It opened up the door to modern European thinking, which foundation stone of modern capitalism.

For instance, the old ‘flat-theory of the earth’ was challenged in the C14th to show the earth was not flat. Instead the earth was ‘round’ or spherical (although it is not a perfect round shape).

This was the beginning of the move away for the ‘dark age’ in medieval Europe. It was based on the challenge to medieval scholasticism through the philological study of original classical Greek texts – the so-called ‘ad fontes’ principle – back to the sources of the Latin texts of the period.

It adopted several methods from the Greek classics.

The Aristotelian method of concentrating on the observable properties of the physical world influenced the development of science in Europe. In 1610, Galileo embraced ‘heliocentricism’ (earth rotating the sun) and challenged ‘geocentric (earth as centre of the universe view) - being condemned to house arrest for his remaining life by the Church for it.

Another example is the birth of European ‘humanism’ in this period. The line from a drama ofTerence, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto (or with nil for nihil), meaning "I am a man [i.e. human, not 'male'], I think nothing human alien to me", known since antiquity through the endorsement of Saint Augustine, gained renewed currency as epitomizing the humanist attitude.

There was an intellectual revolution. Universities came alive to the revolution in thinking. Old ideas were challenged and new ideas were put into place. European culture was opened up to fresh thinking on a vast scale.

It is ironic that modern religious though of the ‘fundamentalist’ variety should revert to the medieval ‘dark ages’ period of thinking – and see itself as counter-posed to science and even more ironic that public policy makers and slight levels of strategic thinking should adopt this pre-capitalist mindset.

Enlightenment and Democratic Revolutions

The enlightenment period in European and American history was a challenge to the philosophical foundations of the institutions of the medieval era – the absolute monarchy, the nobility and the church.

For instance, the European ideas of C18th enlightenment challenged existing notions about political philosophy (e.g. creating a philosophy of natural rights as opposed to the orthodoxy that monarchs derived their authority from God – with writers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau), challenged religious notions of ‘fate’ through satire and analysis (e.g. Voltaire attacking Leibniz through his novel ‘Candide’ and his philosophical dictionary challenging the medieval philosophical ideas through evidence-based modern ideas), etc. It was a period of the great fermenting of ideas.These ideas weakened the political legitimacy and moral standing of the old order – and questioned the unlimited power of taxation by monarchy, nobility and the church. They led to the French Revolution and influenced the American Revolution. Incidentally, the English revolution was also based on a challenge to medieval institutions, but it was based on a philosophical foundation of Protestantism and religious utopianism.

There were some philosophical upholders of the old order. The argument between the Englishmen Thomas Paine in his ‘Rights of Man’ and ‘Edmund Burke’ is his ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ centred on the merits of revolution to abolish these institutions or reform to keep these institutions by upholding their strengths. The arguments of Edmund Burke on ancient institutions were to be repeated by Disraeli half a century later in a famous speech in Manchester. However, Burke and Disraeli did not argue with the power of the elected element in the British unwritten constitution. The tradition of Great British ‘compromise’ in this area continues by giving nominal power to old institutions and real power to the elected elements.

Modern France and America were founded on the basis of new institutions and new ideas. Ironically, in modern France the enlightenment ideas on an institutional challenge to the power of the Church has been equated with anti-religion policy of the state in some sense -beyond the philosophical attack on ‘privileged’ and ‘superstitious’ religious views - and in modern America, the great sophisticated alliance between religion and reason in ‘deism’ has recently been broken by the resurgence of religious irrationalism in the ‘creationism’ theory and a concerted attempt to influence public policy.

I would argue that the vast seismic political shift political away from the ‘divine absolute rule’ of the monarchy towards rule by the elected assembly of the people was the precursor of the economic revolutions – the birth of modern capitalism. The role of ideas in all spheres cannot be under-estimated in this process (scientific, cultural, political and all sorts of other ideas).

Industrial Revolution

For instance, the Industrial Revolution in England was the first capitalist revolution in the world – and was preceded by a history of English ‘firsts’ in the field of successful political ideas and innovation. England was the first country to unite in Europe, the first to adopt a charter on liberty of the person from arbitrary arrest in the Magna Carta, the first to abolish the absolute right of the monarchy and lay the foundation for the sovereignty of elected rulers in the English revolution, the first to create a united Kingdom of several nations in Europe, etc. This level of revolutionary change created modern Britain.

The UK Industrial Revolution founded on these vast political changes on top of vast ideas about a new society. To put it strong and clear terms: Democracy (defined as rule and power of an elected assembly) created Capitalism and the idea that Capitalism created Democracy is chronologically false and makes elementary confusion between cause and effect in the history of capitalism.

The Industrial Revolution itself did not stop its creative thinking and freedom of the imagination.

Invention and innovation was at the heart of the Industrial Revolution – steam power and engine, cotton processing machines to the later stages of creating the London underground and the transatlantic telegraph. Scientific and technological revolution was at constant feature of economic development and the rise of modern British capitalism. Think big ideas, turn ideas into reality through invention and turn inventions into industrial business propositions through attracting capital investment and project managing their completion: these were the guiding principles of the first modern capitalist economy in the world.

Equally, the period of the economic take-off in the UK was not based on solely on ruthless exploitation in the ‘dark satanic mills’ alone. This is a stereotype – and a modern myth about capitalism.

On the contrary, this was a period of great social and political reform. Capitalism was humane and pluralistic as well as an engine of economic change.

For instance, during the rule of William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli as Prime Ministers (a period I studied in depth for my ‘A’ levels in the late 1970s with these two as my favourite Prime Ministers - alongside Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee and Harold Wilson - which has excited me even more recently), the landscape of the newly urbanised Britain was changed for the better with free schooling for children, slum clearance and good housing, introduction of municipal local government such as free libraries, clean water and sanitary conditions, etc. Working conditions were improved by industrial legislation – ending practices such as child labour and limiting dangerous working by the introduction of the ten hour bill.

The successful Education Bill requiring £10 million taxation was called “tyrannical”, free libraries were “founded upon theft and upon the violation of the most sacred in the world, the liberty of your fellow man” and the attempt to mitigate the condition of labour in the nail-making industry by appointing inspectors to report on them was attacked as “violating the sanctity of the English home”. In early C19^th a Bill to prohibit the use of small boys as chimney brushes was defeated. Lord Lauderdale said: “Such things as this ought to be left entirely to the moral feelings of perhaps the most moral people on the faces of the earth....If the legislature attempts to lay down a moral code for the people, there is always a danger that every feeling of benevolence will be extirpated.” These arguments were defeated then, but they have been revived in the modern age in the free market lobbyists and writers.

At the same time, democracy (elected assemblies) was universalised to all classes of men (women got the vote after the war in). The first attempt at such change failed in the early C19^th and only succeeded decades later in the successful passage of the 1832 Reform Act.

The period saw more big ideas and not less. Change was in the air. Even the question of the British Empire was heatedly debated. Obviously, the British Empire was expanded in this period with the crowning of Queen Victoria as Empress of India by Disraeli. Gladstone had very different ideas. His view that the British Empire was ‘liberty for ourselves and slavery for the rest of mankind’ showed that not everyone agreed with the idea of the empire. Gladstone also attempted to grant Ireland home rule. The lack of success did not indicate total consent – even the most formidable Prime Minister of this era sought change. Equally, Gladstone sought to separate the church from the state.

The dynamism of big ideas was important at all levels and in all spheres of life to the dynamism of capitalism in its first Industrial Revolution in Victorian Britain making it humane and progressive.

America War of Independence

Across the Atlantic, the USA also showed the importance of ideas. I just want to mention a few of them: independence from colonial rule and racism.

The first idea was the one of the right of countries to be independent and to beak off from colonialism. The USA in its war of independence was one of the first nations to be free of European imperialism. To spell it out contrary to another myth about capitalism: white people of European background fought a war against British colonialism and won it. A struggle over oppressive taxation turned into a full-blown revolt against rule by the ‘mother’ country. America was born out of colonialism and this impacted on its view of imperialism in a very deep way. So I do not subscribe to the simple equation of American capitalism to imperialism.

The ideas of the American Revolution were deeply connected to the French enlightenment, but they were transformed into working out a form of government that would create consensus on a democratic basis – republicanism combined with a separation of powers and a modern constitution.

Race Issues in American History

Whilst many think that racial injustice was a small sideline issue in American history, it was a vital issue and was raised as an issue at the very beginning of the American Revolution, when slavery was not abolished. The contradiction between universal human rights and the ‘slavery’ of people on the basis of the colour of their skin (or on any other basis) was to explode in the USA.

Cries of human injustice, captured in the fight against slavery through national campaigning and actions such as the ‘slave underground railroad’ to help free slaves, turned into a critical issue for the future of the United States. It was the northern capitalists in America who fought the southern slave-owning aristocracy on the question of slavery in one of the biggest events in American history: the American Civil War. So contrary to the view that slavery was readily accepted in the USA, it actually tore up American society from top to bottom. The side that championed the freeing of the slaves won led by Abraham Lincoln, who coined the famous modern phrase ‘government of the people, for the people and by the people’. He paid for this success by his life (a President assassinated for his courage). The American capitalists fought against slavery and the neutral position on this question adopted by the Founding Fathers was overturned.

In modern America, further progress on race was required a century later to rid America of the post-civil war racism – a lot of it in the south – segregation. This created another giant capturing the progressive ideals of American society: Martin Luther King Jnr. He too succeeded. He too paid a price with his life. Modern American capitalism has a legacy of the fight against racism – closely associated with the attitudes of one great political family, the Kennedys, who also paid with their lies for idealism. The equation of American capitalism with racism is a stereotype – and another modern myth of about capitalism. The election of the first black President Barack Obama is in some ways a fulfilment of the dreams of Abraham Lincoln rather than a departure from it (and he echoed this in his train journey to Washington DC prior to being sworn in as President).

Racist Nationalism in Europe

In Europe, the ideas also played a major role. In the French revolution, the idea of the universal Rights of Man was stated. This was a great step forward in European and world thinking.

However, I want to look at the reverse side of the picture. The most negative role played by ideas was through the racist nationalism ideas of Nazism and fascism. Hitler symbolised the worst of European thinking. It was using industrialism to conquer territory, impose dictatorship in Europe and to kill vast numbers of innocent people on the basis of their race or minority status in the ‘holocaust’. This was Europe sinking to the depths of depravity. Most of Europe fell to Hitler and many Europeans collaborated or actively supported Hitler.

However, the fight against Hitler was fought and won. UK, USA, Russia and many freedom fighters and allies contributed to defeating this level of reactionary evil in Europe. The costs of the war in human terms were estimated to be over 55 million dead. Its values were questioned and after the war a new Universal Declaration of Human Rights reaffirmed the best of European values. European imperialism was questioned and eventually dismantled giving way to new nations across Africa, Asia, Caribbean and Latin America.

Recently, the rise of racist nationalism in Europe is a cause for concern. Europe is sinking into a political backwardness again. The causes of this can be many. There is a global issue of the ‘fear’ of the vast forces of globalisation. The European Union is an aspect of globalisation – a facet of it in terms of territorial zone of expansion with a classical imperialist power emanating in the centre of the European Union bureaucracy and national components. This fear is translated to ‘nationalism’ including racist nationalism with hatred of minority races and cultures in Europe amongst other types of nationalism. There is a myth-building in this form of ‘racist nationalism’ – myths similar to the ones created by Hitler and similar racist nationalisms. This can be seen by some as a reversion to the glories of European imperialist powers and by others as a tool of competition through a form of political and cultural protectionism to create an economic protectionism.

It is clear that the destruction of European idealism will harm the emergence of Europe as a global driver of progress in the world. It may restrict or even retard the development of the dynamic features of European capitalism. The historical lesson of racist nationalism is not a positive one for Europe. Today, the forces of globalisation are more able to resist a turn back towards racist nationalism. The myth of racist nationalism does not equate to dynamic capitalism. On the contrary, in European history the ‘Rights of Man’ (humanity) is a cause for real celebration. Nationalism was a progressive feature of Europe, giving rise to new capitalism during the formation of different European nations (specifically in the C19th), this has ceased to be a progressive feature of it long ago. Nazism spelt the death knell for European power instead of energising it. This is the most serious challenge for the European strategic thinking requiring the injection of global idealism into all its parts – to paraphrase the advertisement for a well-known European beer.

Communism and Capitalism

Communism too was found wanting. It’s suppression of political dissent and totalitarianism was defeated in the Cold War. Now, the biggest Communist state in the world has adopted a capitalist economy. It too is facing big changes – mostly at an economic and cultural level. The Tiananmen Square protests two decades ago reaching right to the top of the Communist government showed that democracy was an idea in China too. The current arrangements in China fit neatly with the materialist and cynical view of capitalism – without political freedom or without social conscience – and I do not believe they have a long term future. Change may come internally or may be combined with external campaigning pressure. However, I am not pessimistic. I can see things bubbling beneath the surface in China which give me signs of hope without being complacent or without endorsing any suppression of freedom.

The power of the Chinese middle classes is an energising force in China. There is cultural renewal (not in Maoist sense of ‘imprisoning’ and destroying the progress of cultural ideas at the professional, artistic and educational level). China has embraced the key features of globalisation including external investment, trade, global markets, access to global resources, etc. Global culture and companies are part of the Chinese landscape. There are also global standards in various parts of Chinese economic life. As a global economic power, China wants to be part of the world. It is restricted by its outdated view of territorial ‘spheres of control’ – with a slight imperialist outlook on this question in Asia, it’s alliance with dictatorships although this is heavily conditional and not necessarily a permanent feature and, most of all, it’s internal policy of the suppression of political freedom and dissent.

Democracy is a possibility (I would argue inevitable) in China – in the sense of full political freedom. The issue is about the timescale and the process. In most other respects, China is open to scientific innovation and creative capitalism.

American imperialism

Equally, American capitalism has not had a very easy relationship with ‘imperialism’. Contrary to the stereotype, the USA did not follow the British model of territorial ‘imperialism’ because it too fought the American War of Independence to free itself from colonial rule.

The argument for the characterisation of USA as ‘imperialist’ is based on two ideas: equating global economic, military, political and cultural power and influence with imperialism. However, I will show that this is a specific use of the term ‘imperialism’ without its territorial aspect. It is undeniable that USA has become a superpower – the real sole superpower in the world prior to it making a strategic error when it equated its military power with political strength in the world. Its victory over ‘communism’ in Soviet Union and east Europe was turned into a disaster.

Its role as the sole superpower gave way to perceptions of an active global bully in terms of the strategic doctrine of the project for the American century and the adoption of the strategic philosophical framework of the ‘clash of civilisations’ based on a ‘religious imperialism’ based on a Christian fundamentalist lobby and vote bank.

It tried to change this perception by the adoption of the goal of democracy in its international policy. This zeal was still equated with imperialism – in a Cromwellian sense (of committing atrocities in the name of a just cause). At the same time, the US made strategic alliances across the world on the basis of democracy. It adopted a broader attitude towards business with emerging powers in Asia. Now, it is seeking a policy of ‘engagement’ rather than confrontation to repair the damage done to its global image.

America in my opinion has always been a ‘poor’ imperialist power. This may due to its isolation from the vast Eurasian and African continental land masses. I believe that it is also connected with its mindset inherited from its foundation as the country that fought a war of independence to free itself from colonial rule. It’s public opinion is outside its comfort zone when dealing with questions of empire-building or fighting to be the world’s policeman. The strength of American public opinion on Vietnam war and now Iraq shows that contrary to the modern myth that American capitalism is comfortable with imperialism.

The critics of American ‘imperialism’ have different views on different subjects. There is a political spectrum of opinion in this unholy alliance rather than uniformity of views. These range from competitors for American economic and military power in the world (e.g. European Union as an economic competitor to Russia as a military competitor) to the peace and environment movements to those who wish to overthrow every piece of progress since the medieval times (e.g. the Taliban-al Qaeda terrorist network and their political sympathisers in Afghanistan/ Pakistan and around the world).

America is a major global democracy with widespread individual freedom and constitutional checks and accountability of its government. In this sense, the critics of American capitalism have no real valid case. The equation of democracy with ‘plutocracy’ (power of the rich) has some merit, but it is a false device of criticism. Democracy and freedom has to be measured in its own terms. Unlike many other countries, American tanks do not dictate who governs. The recent change in US policy happened through the power of the ballot box rather than the barrel of a gun. Elsewhere – another critic of US ‘imperialism’ – are the political dictators in the world who crush public opinion and dissent (e.g. in Burma, Iran recently, North Korea, Venezuela and even in China – some of whom are mutual allies).

There is a complete misreading of the situation to use relative differences in application and then equate American democracy with dictatorship – with its attempt to undermine democracy as a whole in the world and give some comfort to dictatorships. The concept of an alliance of democracies has a merit in the context of seeking diplomatic solutions to complex problems of the behaviour of non-democratic states and seeking alliances to ‘isolate’ the non-state terrorist insurgency movements from wider global public opinion.

Global democracy as an ideal in the modern world is a powerful driver for progress. However, it cannot be imposed under the barrel of the gun. There has to be a battle for hearts and minds – or ideals. In this context, the USA is a superpower amongst many others. Its democracy is more like other democracies in its power than any sole use of military might. To engage in this process is a lesson for modern globalisation after the ‘wasted period’ of American military power based on ‘imperialist’ ideas. The power of political idealism, scientific and social progress is the power to be mobilised to tackle the vast challenges in the world such as global poverty and deep levels of social inequality, the 21^st century challenge of conserving the scarce resources of the world and the need to renew the fight to end global discrimination and prejudice.

Conclusion

The energy of capitalism cannot be easily contained. It has a long history of an intrinsic connection with free ideas and freedom of people as well as an intrinsic deep connection with democracy and the social welfare of people – often led by these vast scale ideas. I do not think it is right to see capitalism in a stereotyped way (as some of its Marxist critics and materialist supporters do) and restrict it to an exploitative economic function. I believe that strategic thinking and public policy should be informed a multi-dimensional view of capitalism with its fresh developments based on new ideas in all spheres of human existence. There is a need for the renewal of ‘idealism’ in strategic thinking and public policy. A fresh sense of a global mission is urgently required to fight for the best of humanity alongside a new exploration of intellectual and scientific paradigms to expand our horizons. The right of the people of the world to exercise sovereignty on matters of governance including through new thinking about the right governance structures in the age of globalisation is anew imperative. ‘Ethical Globalisation’ is possible.

Copyright Atma Singh 2009