Our new communications minister, General Surprise (or rather, General Disappointment), went to visit Cuba, to escape the sordid media coverage he is getting back home. He wants South Africa and Cuba to share technology expertise. This warranted a little rant on ITWeb: Cuba veneration survives Poison Ivy.

It’s almost time for the 2008 Olympics, and the Chinese authorities are making sure their coming out party is as green as possible. And what does environmentalism entail? Draconian restrictions, of course. The Communist Party of China no doubt can relate to the greens’ penchant for fascist measures to save the rest of us from ourselves.

In a bid to pacify the environmental tyrants of the occident, the communist tyrants of the orient have instituted a ban on cars. Beijing residents will be limited to driving only every other day, with the aim of halving the usual 3.3 million cars on the road. Additional restrictions will shut down (and even move out of the city) many major factories.

BEIJING (Reuters) — Beijing will introduce “odd-even” traffic restrictions for two months from July 20 to help ease congestion and reduce pollution during the Olympics and Paralympics, officials said on Friday.

Authorities hope the regulations will take 45 percent of the city’s 3.29 million cars off the road and reduce emissions from vehicles by 63 percent, officials told a news conference.

[…] Those affected by the ban will be compensated by not having to pay road or vehicle taxes for three month, costing the city about 1.3 billion yuan ($189 million).

Violators would be punished “according to relevant national and local regulations” and lose the compensation.

Only 70 percent of government-owned cars will be included in the scheme.

And if you’re sufficiently poor to have an older, high-emissions car (of the kind Britain’s PM, Gordon Brown, unapologetically wants to use as an excuse to super-tax the working class), you don’t get to drive it at all.

Over at the Huffington Post, this measure is considered a mere band-aid. One dreads to think what a real cure would look like.

And while you park your car, and close your factories, and stop smoking, and renounce your right to protest or get drunk, here’s what you shall cheer, the “spiritual civilisation bureau” decrees: “Aoyun! Jia You! Zhongguo! Jia You!”

The offically-approved cheer, complete with “civilised” gestures, is being taugh through official media and school training programmes. Note the faceless face of “civilisation”. Reports the BBC: “Li Ning, president of the Beijing Etiquette Institute, told the Beijing News that the cheer was in line with general international principles for cheering, while at the same time possessing characteristics of Chinese culture.”

Good to know we have international principles for cheering. I’ll confess I’ve been very disturbed by the uncivilised cheering I’ve come across. Granted, this involved anti-social people who even had the temerity to wear individual faces in public. Shameful. Glad they’re cracking down on that sort of thing.

Just when you thought this couldn’t get any funnier, you discover that with beautiful irony, the cheer means, “Olympics! Add oil! China! Add oil!”

Not if you have the misfortune of being a Chinese citizen in Beijing, you don’t.

Our own politicians and 2010 World Cup organisers undoubtedly have luxury box seats at the Beijing Olympics, where they’ll be learning from the masters how to please the world’s eco-fascists.

Over on the M&G’s ThoughtLeader, Bert Olivier, an academic of the philosophical persuasion, rails against those who defend “the unforgiveable practices of capitalism”. He leans heavily on a polemic known as “The Corporation”, a documentary (and book) by Joel Bakan on which I’ve written before.

There’s so much to dispute in his post and the comments, I hardly know where to start. As one of the people who frequently offers a defence for the practices of capitalism (most recently here), I’ll make a few general points in rebuttal, though. I’ll refrain from cheap shots about the left-wing utopia from which most of us graduate (or drop out), thus to grow up and discover the real world. There is neat irony, however, in how our academic friend’s comrade in anti-capitalism, above, portrays himself. But enough ad humorem attacks.

Let’s begin by drawing some clear distinctions. Communism and capitalism aren’t just two systems among many. They are logical opposites, and are the only ways we know of organising production and consumption. One can either presume production and consumption are determined individually, or collectively. Collectivism presumes society (as expressed by the state) owns and organises both the production and consumption of its members. Capitalism supposes instead that individuals have the right to use and dispose of the fruits of their own labour as they see fit, without being constrained by any law other than those against infringing the same rights of others.

There are bastardisations of the concept, which is why “free-market capitalism” often needs to be spelt out. State-capitalism, for example, is merely a form of collective organisation. Socialism and communism are both collectivist in nature. The difference between them is a matter of degree, not nature. Any degree of socialism detracts from the general prosperity and must be enforced against the will of citizens. Any control of some parts of the economy, in order to be effective, eventually requires the control of more parts. In extremis, this means the logical conclusion of socialism is communist totalitarianism. Stalin wasn’t a perversion of communism. He was its logical culmination.

Limited socialist principles can appear to work, for a while, in rich countries, just like a rich individual can use his savings for a while without appearing to work for his lifestyle. It is no surprise that the well-intentioned New Deal culminated in the confiscatory taxes and economic malaise of the 1970s, and that a return to free market principles cured this malaise. Western Europe, too, became wealthy thanks to free enterprise and free trade. Poverty declined dramatically, and a large middle class was established. Once wealthy, it appeared to be able to afford a measure of socialism, but a few decades later, it is discovering that its savings are depleted, that not enough new wealth is being created. There is a price to pay for this well-intentioned idealism, and even rich countries find they cannot afford it forever. Unlike European economies, truly free markets need not fear immigration. Socialist markets, however, cannot afford to support even their own people, let alone people whose past production has not been decocted into the common pot. In poor countries, socialism has not offered a remedy for poverty either. It merely keeps the people mired in poverty — and that’s before accounting for the deleterious effects of tyranny or corruption.

The corporation doesn’t rule anyone. They can only profit if they offer things people are prepared to buy, and go to extreme lengths to do so. Do you really believe they determine what we eat, what we watch, what we wear, where we work, and what we do? Would you have more or less choice if you were limited to your own production and barter trade with your neighbours? Thanks to the corporation, we now have a vast array of food, mundane and exotic, on offer, at real prices (relative to our income) that our parents and grandparents would think fantastical. The picture alongside is one of hundreds of stores from which I can choose within five minutes of my home. Thanks to the corporation, we have a huge array of clothing available to us to suit every taste, from ordinary and practical to uber-cool and fashionable. If your needs or interests are more specialised, you probably know a store like the one below. There’s a lot you can say about golfers and golf equipment stores, but you can’t accuse them of not offering choice. And yet, not being controlled by corporations, I have never felt obliged to buy as much as a golf ball.

Corporations determine what we watch and where we work? Whether you sit in front of the TV all day is your problem, but don’t blame the people who create the thousands of different shows for different tastes broadcast on hundreds of different channels. If none of that extraordinary choice satisfies you, you can still read a book, you know. Unlike our parents and grandparents, who were employed for life on the same boring corporate ladder, or our great-grandparents who were stuck on the same farm or village all their lives and did the work their fathers did, the modern professional workforce job-hops every few years. Many work for themselves, from home, doing things that companies don’t think worth doing. You’re saying people do this because they have less choice where to work and what to do than they used to have?

Even if companies are monopolies, people have choices, to buy or not to buy, to spend or save, to buy here or buy there. Only by serving the needs of customers can corporations profit. Therefore, corporations profit only to the degree in which they serve the public good. When talking about monopolies, however, it is important to distinguish between those that are established or protected by law, and those that arise naturally. The latter simply reap the fruits of being better than competitors at providing a particular product or service, and are always vulnerable, should they abuse their position, to the emergence of new competitors with new ideas and better ways of doing things. Their power is restricted by the choice consumers have of buying their products or doing without them, as well as by the possibility for competition to arise — i.e. their power is restricted by the market, just as it would be if they were less powerful competitors. A monopoly’s power becomes unrestricted when it is protected by law. For example, in South Africa, new cellular operators cannot emerge, rendering the three current “competitors” a cartel. To use an example that isn’t likely to be clouded by “essential service” emotion, the same goes for casinos. They are governed not only by licence conditions, but by a limit on the actual number of licences in issue. Hence the lack of choice, the lack of variety, and the uncompetitive house rules.

It is true that rich countries maintain some subsidies or trade barriers. This is not free-market capitalism. This is just as evil as the subsidies or trade barriers maintained by developing countries. The latter are, in fact, much higher, so focusing on farm protectionism in Japan or Europe, for example, is largely a red herring. In any case, no matter whether the rich countries do the right thing — from which their own consumers would benefit — the developing world could gain a great deal of the potential benefits by dropping trade barriers unilaterally. In fact, if they do so, but the rich world doesn’t, the developing world will become more prosperous more rapidly, and there is every chance that they will eventually overtake rich countries — especially those like Europe, where the socialist streak runs deep and trade barriers are relatively high.

On corporate abuses: how many people bought GM’s pickups after the media reported on the fact that they exploded? Its failure to care about the welfare of its customers had a massive impact on the company and its profitability, and on the industry in general. The same goes for other corporate abuses. First, they are covered by laws against theft and fraud — laws which apply to all of us. Second, they open a company to potentially crippling civil liabilities. Third, they can harm the reputation of a company gravely; many have gone bankrupt after the public’s trust was destroyed by a major disaster or consumer safety scandal. Yes, corporate social responsibility is cynical, in some way. It is designed to convince customers that the company is serving them well and deserves their patronage more than a competitor does. I can’t see how this dynamic is a bad thing. Or did you want to start legislating the moral motives for people’s actions?

On subjecting corporations to the state, doesn’t the state serve its citizens, and exist at the pleasure of the people? And isn’t a corporation merely a voluntary association of citizens designed to pool resources and better divide labour, so the whole becomes more productive than the parts? Why, then, if the state is to be subject to the will of the people, advocate that certain groups of people should be subject to the control and regulation of the state (beyond ordinary laws against murder, theft and fraud)? This is philosophically inconsistent with a belief in the freedom of individuals, and a democratically elected state with constitutionally limited power, established by citizens to uphold laws that protect common rights and liberties.

Undoubtedly, some people do not act legally, or charitably, or morally. But this doesn’t change when you place them in a state bureaucracy with power over citizens. As long as such actions fall outside the boundaries of limited and justly applied law under which everyone’s rights are protected from infringement by another, individual self-interest pursued through free association and voluntary choice remains the best way to organise production in society. If you demand to see why, to quote Christpher Wren’s epitaph, look around you.

Beyond the ties that bind us all — to respect the person and property rights of others — what justification is there for wishing to tie down the capitalist Gulliver? What will be the consequences, unintended or otherwise? Fewer choices? Lost wealth creation? Fewer jobs? Less innovation? Forfeit poverty alleviation? I contend that there is no justification, except that Gulliver is big and free and independent. This makes the Lilliputians afraid of him. That such an instinctive, emotional response is natural makes it no less irrational.

Foreign Policy Blog (which also has a very amusing photograph) notes this priceless quotation, attributed to Fidel Castro in a 1959 interview with CBS’s Edward Murrow:

I’m not thinking to cut my beard, because I’m accustomed to my beard and my beard means many things to my country. When we have fulfilled our promise of good government I will cut my beard.

You said it, oh, bearded one. You said it.

Fidel Castro, the dictator and oppressor-in-chief of communist Cuba, has resigned as president. At last!

For some years now, pundits have been speculating whether Fidel Castro really is still alive. A case in point is the Wall Street Journal’s resident funny man, James Taranto. Despite clear indications to the contrary, Taranto speculated in August 2006 that his condition might improve to such an extent that doctors may soon be able to pronounce him dead. The following January, he noted a headline that began, “Castro Reportedly in Grave…”, and bemoaned the fact that the next word was “Condition”. He wished the adjective were a noun.

I share Taranto’s disdain for Castro. Having overthrown the corrupt Fulgencio Batista almost 50 years ago with promises of liberation, he instead murdered hundreds of opponents, jailed thousands more, and established an oppressive, communist tyranny. The pretence of a glorious revolution for freedom and democracy didn’t last long. However, the cult of El Lider Maximo, as he became known, took on heroic proportions. First, the Bay of Pigs betrayal was spun into a glorious victory by Cuba over the evil Americans. Not long afterwards, the legendary stand-off between him, as proxy for Nikita Kruschev, and John F Kennedy cemented Castro’s reputation, and the secret deal that ended the Cuban missile crisis cemented his political survival and longevity.

Surprisingly, Cuban communism survived — but only just — the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the real Cuba, described by people other than leftist propagandists led by the nose by state minders, remained rather less romantic than the fantasies of useful idiots would have it. Still, Cuba remains an icon of hope for people who love 1950s automobilia, or pine for the glory days of Soviet anti-capitalism. People like Thabo Mbeki, for example. Apparently, we have a lot to learn from Cuba. I’d agree. We can learn how not to run a country, or an economy, for example.

Here’s hoping Cuba rouses itself from its torpor and shakes off the bonds of Castro’s mind-numbing personality cult. Here’s hoping they reject the regency he has installed, in the person of his brother, Raúl Castro. Here’s hoping that when they do, they also renounce the destructive communist idealism of which El Lider Maximo was one of the last hold-outs. Here’s to the fall of Fidel Castro.

Update: Corrected an error, introduced by careless editing, which made the last sentence of the second paragraph refer to the wrong antecedent.

It’s not funny. It’s actually pretty scary. But all the white racists who voted “no” in the 1992 referendum, which asked white voters whether they’d be okay with “power sharing” with the ANC, are vindicated. Turns out there’s not enough power to share.

All the doomsayers who predicted infrastructure decay and economic collapse, all those who fled South Africa to make a home in Australia or elsewhere, now appear to have been right. They may have been right for the wrong reasons, and may have expressed it in distasteful terms, but right they were.

“There is no power crisis,” said president Thabo Mbeki in May 2006. Yeah right, dear leader. Amandla aWethu¹, right? Sorry, Mr President, but a belated apology 18 months later doesn’t keep the lights on. (It’s worth noting that judging by the Google results this is just about the only significant apology Mbeki has ever offered for anything.)

Read the rest of this entry »

1. ”Power to the people!” [↩]

President Thabo Mbeki marked the anniversary of Che Guevara’s death by paying homage to the communist revolutionary. The man who was instrumental in establishing a brutal dictatorship in Cuba, he called dedicated to the true liberation of each people and the genuine independence of all countries. The man who lied about his credentials to work as a doctor, he says worked to emancipate the working people from the scourges of poverty, hunger and underdevelopment. Guevara’s attacks on the genuine independence of other countries by fomenting communist revolution, he calls modest efforts of assistance. The man in charge of hundreds of extrajudicial executions he calls one of the great human beings of the age. And when the Bolivians took offence and shot the murderous bastard, Mbeki calls it assassination.

Despising a communist and a murderer doesn’t necessarily mean his enemies were saints. They most certainly were not. But despising his enemies likewise doesn’t mean Guevara deserves blind reverence. In fact, even a modest amount of knowledge of his life and work would counsel against hagiography.

Assuming that Mbeki is no longer a dyed-in-the-wool communist who hails tyrants as heroes and murderers as liberators, and assuming that Mbeki remains the well-read intellectual he always was, one can only conclude that this was a cold, calculated attempt to win over the left wing of his party. Which raises the question: is there no level to which Mbeki won’t stoop for the sake of cheap political demagoguery?

It can easily seem churlish, literal-minded or petty to point out the various evils that find themselves supported — or at least unprotested — in the name of some abstract, flower-power notion of “peace”. Hippie-era folk music is just youthful idealism, after all, and it’s meant well, is it not? We all know the kids are just hankering for an imagined utopia, not the reality of the gulag. Weren’t we all once young and idealistic? (I certainly was. Peace sign, long hair, the works. Thankfully, nature dealt swiftly with both.)

Pete Seeger is an iconic folk song writer and committed communist, who wrote such songs as Turn, Turn, Turn!, If I Had A Hammer, and Where Have All The Flowers Gone. Reportedly, the 88-year-old singer recently repudiated (wait for it…) Joseph Stalin.

Mark Steyn, in his eloquent comment on this about-turn by Seeger does not stop at, “Oh well, that’s okay then, you daft hippie.” He makes a much more serious point, and anticipates accusations of boorishness because of it. Read the rest of this entry »