In Singapore roughly about 85% of its residents (excluding expatriate
and foreign workers) own their own housing. This in itself has done
quite a bit for income distribution... <
Jim writes:
what is the origin of this program? was it due to class struggle from
below, with workers fighting for a better deal? or fear -- among the
ruling elite -- of that struggle happening? or was it a nationalist
effort to unite classes in a time of trouble? or was it simply that
the elite consisted of a bunch of nice guys who wanted to help their
social inferiors?
A mix of most but on balance mostly a nationlist effort since Singapore broke
away from Malaysia and it encountered fragmentation on ethnic lines. And it
was elite led and still mostly is but the fruits of capitalist gains have been
spread well enough that the population at large does not seem discontented
(there is grumbling though).
So the question about equality in a capitalist context is and may appear to be
conflicting but states do and can regulate the worst excesses of market outcomes
by tax and other redistributive mechanisms.<
Further Jim writes:
what matters is the specific context. It's wrong to see capitalism as
_always_ involving increasing inequality (as it does in the current
neoliberal era). The working class and other dominated forces can and
do fight against inequality. Under the right specific historical
circumstances they can win social-democratic compromises and the like,
actually decreasing the degree of inequality. Under other historical
conditions, they may even abolish capitalism and establish some sort
of socialism.
--
Absolutely, so to return to the original post about Sen, he should not be
dismissed simply because he is not a radical. Issues of inequality, while
cannot be addressed remarkably under capitalist relations (though witness the
Scandinavian situation), politics always creates spaces for addressing it. Two
recent examples are noteworthy, India's PM's speech on Aug 15 (60th
anniversary) emphasizing the importance of equality and last night's
action-oriented speech by Singapore's PM at the National Day Rally (see url
below):
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_150041.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor Currently
Comparative International Development Senior Visiting Research Fellow
University of Washington Asia Research Institute
1900 Commerce Street National University of Singapore
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA 469 A Tower Block
Phone: (253) 692-4462 Bukit Timah Road #10-01
Fax : (253) 692-5718 Singapore 259770
http://tinyurl.com/yhjzrm Ph: (65) 6516 8785
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Jim Devine wrote:
Anthony D'Costa wrote:
Speaking about Singapore and East Asian economies, capitalism they follow no doubt
and most bristle at the mention of marxist, socialist yet they do practice a
variety of socialistic policies, meaning regulate the markets to meet certain
social outcomes. <
One of my hobby-horses is that the Left is in a real mess and needs to
clean up its theory (and practice, but that's another issue). One way
that this should be done is to avoid the the common conflation
(especially by conservatives) of "non-market" with "socialistic."
Intervention in markets is necessary but not sufficient in the
definition of "socialistic." After all, we see non-market or even
anti-market policies in the heart of US capitalism: Wall Street has
all sorts of regulations that violate the purity of the Market in
order to protect stock-owners. The Pentagon has all sorts of
non-market protections for its contractors, insulating them from
market competition. Franco's Spain was not just capitalist but also
had all sorts of non-market or anti-market rules (such as strict bans
on pornography and birth control) that protected the system. These did
not make Franco's system "socialistic."
The late socialist leader Norman Thomas often decried the combination
of "socialism for the rich and free-enterprise for the poor," but the
"socialism" in this phrase is more rhetorical than real. Capitalism
has always involved non-market and even anti-market protections for
the very rich and their allies. (Of course, the rich _buy_ these
protections, by buying politicians, etc.)
In Singapore roughly about 85% of its residents (excluding expatriate
and foreign workers) own their own housing. This in itself has done
quite a bit for income distribution... <
what is the origin of this program? was it due to class struggle from
below, with workers fighting for a better deal? or fear -- among the
ruling elite -- of that struggle happening? or was it a nationalist
effort to unite classes in a time of trouble? or was it simply that
the elite consisted of a bunch of nice guys who wanted to help their
social inferiors?
So the question about equality in a capitalist context is and may appear to be
conflicting but states do and can regulate the worst excesses of market outcomes
by tax and other redistributive mechanisms.<
what matters is the specific context. It's wrong to see capitalism as
_always_ involving increasing inequality (as it does in the current
neoliberal era). The working class and other dominated forces can and
do fight against inequality. Under the right specific historical
circumstances they can win social-democratic compromises and the like,
actually decreasing the degree of inequality. Under other historical
conditions, they may even abolish capitalism and establish some sort
of socialism.
--
Jim Devine / "... the Senate seems like the place where smart people
go to die." -- John Stewart.
