Random Political Observation of the Day:

I think there is something to the thesis that globalism/multiculturism is simply not compatible with economic redistributionism or socialism.

Many people gaze longingly at the Nordic states or even Japan as utopic ideals to which we all ought to strive towards, models of socialist redistributist policies. But this ignores the concrete realities as to the 

conditions which allows for such socialism. It is by no accident that these nations which are successfully redistributist, are also some of the most racist nations on earth and the most “impervious” cultures which do not easily mingle with other cultures nor are susceptible to penetration from foreign cultures. I do not use the word “racist” in the derogatory sense but simply as an empirical fact, that there is a very strong sense or consciousness of their own “tribe” or community or race and very strong ties of local loyalties.

This should be evident when we consider that in order for there to be successful redistribution of wealth, the rich and those who can economically contribute substantially, must be willing and loyal enough to the community stay behind to pay the exorbitant taxes in order to finance the elaborate redistributist machinery. Thus, there needs to be a very strong sense of the boundaries between “us”, those who belong to the tribe, and “them”, the outsiders. But if the rich and the economically successful are globalist, multicultural and cosmopolitan, if their loyalties are fluid and their sense of community blurred, why should they not, like many MNCs, simply look out for their own interest and simply move their funds and their lives around the world as best suits them? Thus, fluidity of communal identity irresistibly leads to fluidity of financial movement. But if funds simply evacuate out of a nation or community, well, who’s going to finance the elaborate socialist and redistributist policies?

Thus there exists a contradiction between what I would call the Anglo-American liberal attitude and the continental European attitude. The Anglo-American attitude is individualist, cosmopolitan, liberal (in the classical sense), capitalist, beholden to no concrete community or culture, bound to no real loyalties or ties, etc. But clearly such an attitude is simply incompatible with the needs of a socialist or redistributist economy. Such an economy must have people who are bound to a community or culture or even race, who commands the loyalty of its people to get them to stay and cough up the dough to finance their elaborate socialist machinery.

In that sense Singapore faces an either-or in this regard. We are a curious mix of both the Anglo-American culture (from our British colonial past) and the “Asian” communal culture, we are after all, by most standards quite “socialist” and “redistributist” already. But this mix is starting to fracture and come apart. Most of the politicized mobs do not see the inherent contradiction between worshipping the West and constantly complaining about Singapore and wanting to migrate, and yet at the same time expects the government to finance everything continental European style. The two attitudes are incompatible. One cannot be at the same time be globalist and flee the demands of local loyalty, AND expect the government or nation to be somehow able to finance the needs of the local populace.

For what happens when you combine the two together? You don’t get to have your cake and eat it, you merely get a sinkhole of massive debt, as America today is in, which has tried to combine the two together…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *