Mocking laughter seems an appropriate response for that level of idiocy. But, on the slim chance that they’re genuinely ignorant rather than just disingenuous, start here:
Or, for a more polite version, try:
Or if you want some quotes with it, see:
Ten seconds of Googling will provide an almost limitless selection of other sources.
I have only anecdotal experience of Singapore. I lived there from 2016 - 2017 and it was the easiest society I’ve been to. For example, when I moved in I needed to get my FIN card. The process was literally: immigration office gave me a time and date to show up their office. Once there I had my card ready (photo taken and everything) in 15 minutes. Everything there just worked.
I was employed as a full-time employee with two different local companies. In both cases all I had to do was inform Ministry of Manpower that I’m starting to work and that was that. Zero fuss.
Excellent public transit. Cheap healthcare, even for a foreigner like me. Green spaces everywhere. Good library system. Efficient banks. Practically zero crime (and I was coming from Seoul which is one of the safest cities in the world).
And on top of all that the racial inclusion is amazing. If you want to work to improve the country you are welcomed.
Yes, you can’t own property, and cars are very, very expensive, and there are rules and regulations but personally I can’t wait to go back next I get a chance.
The trains run on time!
Sorry :-).
Anyway, I assume you were a Foreign Talent, rather than a Foreign Worker (15% of the population).
While I don’t have first-hand experience with Singapore, my understanding is that Singapore appeals to many Conservatives in that it has racial tolerance, but almost no cultural tolerance. As long as you are willing to fit in culturally and bring considerable economic talent to the table, it can be a very compelling.
With almost 15% of its population as non-citizens, it also means you can immediately get rid of much of the low-skill unemployed on demand, producing the fantasy of “everybody is in the middle-class” by excluding many who aren’t.
There’s much to admire about Singapore, but make no mistake, it also has components that would be considered beyond unacceptable for anyone on the left and even much of the right.
As I said, it doesn’t fit nicely on the left-right scale.
I’ll second that. Singapore may not quite be a democracy by some of our standards, but it is a very well organised country. It may be run by an iron fist, but the population only has contact with the velvet glove.
Now, we may want to consider the Rules for Rulers:
Singapore is apparently in the situation where the Rulers absolutely depend on the population to be industrious. It is a country with no natural ressources. Come to think of it, that may be the reason why it is taken as a praradigm of “perfect capitalism” while the country is not capitalist at all: it is more a dictatorship, where the dictator would be benevolent. The rich probably confuse capitalism and dictatorship as the final stage of capitalism looks just the same from their side and the only way to sell a dictatorship to the masses is when the dictator is benevolent.
Thank you for the sources. I’m always looking for some light reading 
The problem I face isn’t finding counterarguements. The problem is that my working definitions (and those of the sources you post) and his working definitions are wildly different. To simplify a bit- he conflates any government regulation with socialism. So, in his mind, nationalizing Jewish businesses would be a (left wing) socialist act. I know it sounds absurd, but he is not arguing from ignorance. In fact, his education is deeper than mine and on top of that he has a much better memory for what he has read. I’m seeing a lot of left wingers falling into the trap of assuming their opponents must be stupid or uneducated. The problem is in foundational definitions. We think that certain words are firmly defined and don’t need examining.
That is what I was trying to do with my simple chart, using the axis of privatization of profit and government control to plot how close a system falls to one of the essential isms of political thought. I am trying to get at the essence of these ideals of government as a basis for discussion. So far nobody gets past arguing my foundation, but hey- dialog is good.
Except a lot of right wing governments have nationalised businesses, like the Conservative and Liberal dominated WW1 coalition government who nationalised the breweries and pubs in Carlisle and didn’t privatise them until nearly 60 years later.
Then there are people who are left wing who don’t think nationalisation is a good way to get ownership of the means of production, and argue for workers co-operatives (like myself). It doesn’t matter if your boss is a captain of industry or the government, they are still your boss. It is my belief that Tony Benn’s five essential questions need to be asked of everyone who is in a position of power, not just the government.
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Nationalisation and co-operatives are only tools. You don’t get communist screwdrivers and capitalist screwdrivers, you just get screwdrivers that are used by both groups and everyone in between. It’s what you use them for that makes the difference.
I would point out that there are plenty of anarchists and libertarian-socialists who are communists, but they reject Marxism and it’s ideological descendants. That split happened at the Hague Congress in 1872.
I was neither exactly - I was on a dependent pass which let me work as if I was PR. I was first a waiter at a bakery/cafe (I had plenty of funny conversations there) and then worked for a private college.
But no cultural tolerance? Hmm. I celebrated Christmas and Easter, Diwali and Eid, Chinese New Year and National Day. In the ghost month the Chinese would burn their offerings at the street corners (bins conveniently provided by national vhousing board), Hindus marched their cows and put up their food trays, everyone was nice to the Muslims during their fast.
I’m not saying it’s perfect - for example homosexuality is still in a difficult place in the society and mental health care is behind most western countries. But same is true of most Asian countries (perhaps Taiwan excepted).
OTOH, have you seen what happens to Jehovah’s Witnesses in Singapore? Almost every right in Singapore is granted up to a vaguely defined limit. The vagueness of these limits are what make it an oftentimes unsettling place to live.
You’d be better off with the (still imperfect) Political Compass if you want to visually map political ideologies like fascism vs. communism, but tossing an economic philosophy like capitalism into the mix only confuses things.
Really, though, if your friend is starting with category errors (e.g. conflating government regulation with socialism) there’s not much point in arguing with him, no matter how intelligent or credentialed he is.
Thank you for the reply. This is the first concrete counter I’ve been given to consider. I would argue here that they are ALL economic philosophies.
He is only starting with category errors from our point of view. His definitions are internally consistent and line up with the definitions used by a lot of people on the right wing. The error comes in when I apply my definitions to his words when I listen. When I try to understand his definitions, his arguments don’t sound as crazy. I find we actually agree on several points that seemed at the start contentious and the remaining parts that I still find very wrong, at least I can start arguing with a common vocabulary.
Political ideologies (e.g. Soviet communism, fascism, liberal democracy, anarchy, etc.) incorporate economic philosophies, but aren’t economic philosophies in-and-of themselves like capitalism is. You can run a capitalist economy (or alternately a state-run command economy) to one degree or another under just about any political system (see, for example, Lenin’s NEP).
If by “our point of view” you mean one that takes into account ontological definitions generally accepted and agreed upon by serious and reputable scholars of economics, political science, history, and philosophy then it’s a bit more than a case of “only.”
Since the American right is democracy and freedom waiting capitalists or tools of same and believe the state’s role is to enrich a small parasitical group – or what’s called fascists – is this is surprising why?
The modern conservative’s lust for repressive, capitalist-serving states has been obvious since the Reagan years.
Interesting. As I said, no direct contact, just conversations with a few ex-pats (one who disliked North America’s tolerance of anything and everything and one who found the social constraints too much).
Given the cosmopolitan nature that you describe, I’ll have to ask for more detail next time I have a chance to talk with them. Seems like I’m letting my drive for a narrative colour my interpretation of their comments.
I’m sure that everyone, including me, has their own interpretation of what they see, and even what they see can vary a lot depending what socioeconomic circles they occupy.
For example, I found living in Korea repressive and largely frustrating but my wife really enjoyed her life there. The difference was that she worked for an international school with almost exclusively rich parents and a multicultural team, whereas I worked as a freelancer and had to navigate the cultural prejudices as a foreigner without much external support. Same place, very different experience and interpretation.
Conversely when we moved to Singapore I loved it because I worked with regular Singaporeans and had fairly little stress (although very long working hours), whereas she was in a competitive environment mostly dealing with privileged people who were predominantly not Singaporean (Singaporean children cannot enroll in an international school, so the parents were new rich from India, China etc.). You can imagine how our view of the country was different.
That doesn’t mean that they are correct
The problem is that the definition of socialism as government regulation falls apart if you know the history of socialism. It ignores the Diggers, Mikhail Bakunin, the International Workers Association, the Makhnovists in late 1910s Ukraine, the anarcho-syndicalists in 1930s Spain and the Kurdish democratic confederalists currently fighting against ISIS and their allies in Syria (and those are just the examples that I can quickly think of right now).
No. I agree that they are not correct, but if insist on infusing his words with your definitions there will be a miscommunication. I don’t think it is worthless to have dialog with the opposition, but may be if we don’t honestly try to understand where the other is coming from.
The problem is that the definition of socialism as government regulation falls apart if you know the history of socialism. It ignores the Diggers, Mikhail Bakunin, the International Workers Association, the Makhnovists in late 1910s Ukraine, the anarcho-syndicalists in 1930s Spain and the Kurdish democratic confederalists currently fighting against ISIS and their allies in Syria
You will note I didn’t use the word socialism on the chart. Still- I do know the history of all of the groups you mention. I am not coming at this without a long and involved education. Still, can you give me a definition of ‘Socialism’ that includes all of the actors above mentioned? What I am trying to do with my little chart (and several elaborations that still being refined) is establish a baseline definition in which I can begin to situate instances of government. I assert that the baseline IS economics. At this baseline communism (and the others) is an economic model of how government will mediate the public and the private interest. Of course there will be more details that arise, lifting the complete picture away from this chart.
Thank you for the discussion. You have been genuinely helpful to me.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
