Lincoln Lewis:
In 1817, the social theorist, activist and ‘father’ of ‘cooperation’, Robert Owen, was told at the Congress of Sovereigns at Aix-La-Chappelle that the enduring structural contradiction between capital and labour would make it impossible for his idea of cooperativising the world to gain traction. But instead of rethinking his activism, Owen concluded: ‘I … discovered that I had a long and arduous task before me to convince governments and governed of the gross ignorance under which they were contending against each other, in direct opposition to the real interest and true happiness of both’ (Gray, Alexander (1946) The Socialist Tradition. Longmans; London). Robert Owen continued to believe that cooperation would come upon the world ‘like a thief in the night’ and his essential dogmatism led the British social theorist Harriet Mortineau to comment scathingly ‘Robert Owen is not a man to think differently of a book having read it’ (Ibid).
Karl Marx believed that ‘Man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of the whole cloth; he does not make it out of conditions chosen by himself, but out of such as he finds close at hand’ (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte). Based partly on this notion, Marx made a formidable reputation for himself by building his theory of socialism/communism upon the very theory Owen failed to properly take into account, namely that there exists an enduring and irreconcilable struggle between capital and labour.
Of course, this structural difficulty has historically expressed itself in various ways and to varying degrees. In the early industrial period, Luddism, which attempted to destroy actual factories, the struggle for universal adult suffrage, the rise of the trade union movement and labourite political parties, the formation of the International Labour Organisation, the establishment of Soviet-type communism, New Deal in the United States of America, the establishment of social security systems worldwide and even the successes of Donald Trump, Bernie Saunders, Jeremy Corbin today are all expressions of but at the same time efforts to sensibly manage the enduring conflict between capital and labour. Mainly for their incapacity to truly appreciate the existence and dynamics of this irreconcilable contradiction and their belief that they could reason capitalism to its own demise, Marx and Frederick Engels labeled the likes of Owen utopian socialists.
Like Owen, Mr. Lincoln Lewis wants and is willing to make every effort to create an equitable and good life for all, but I believe that like Owen, his inability to come to grips with the enduring structural deformities of our kind of society has severely hamstrung his efforts. In his usual manner (SN: 24/06/2017), Mr. Lewis set about chastising Dr. David Hinds for what he claimed is the latter’s rudimentary understanding of our constitution. Dr. Hinds was reported as stating that the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) is disappointed with the pace of the constitutional reform ‘to put the necessary checks and balances in place to consolidate our ethos of liberal democracy. Freedom of speech, reduction of the power of the President and the Bill of Rights will be enshrined in the document.’ ‘How more ridiculous can this statement be?’ Mr. Lewis exclaimed. ‘For starters, freedom of expression is already enshrined at Article 146. … We have to start holding the politicians accountable for the things they say and demand that they provide the evidence to back up the vacuous statements they keep making. Unless this is done they will continue to make fools of the masses.’
It would be difficult to deny Mr. Lewis’s contention that our political/social rights are fairly adequately formally protected in our constitution. However, I am drawn to his assertion that ‘There cannot be meaningful reform of what is not known, understood, or given a chance to work’ for, since he has not, one way or another, responded to some searching questions about his approach and now is reproaching Dr. Hinds for comparatively minor infractions, I believe that he is either not aware of its existence or not sufficiently acquainted with the constraints of the kind of structuralism outlined above holds for his approach.
For a start, can Mr. Lincoln Lewis please tell us where is this ‘we,’ who are to hold our politicians accountable? What Guyana has are two large ethnic groups whose elites are in a near irreconcilable struggle for power. When out of office, their intelligentsias are vociferous in their demand for shared governance but when in office all manner of untenable and opportunistic reasons are concocted by the same people to show why power-sharing is not possible. Indeed, although our system has transited to a point where small majoritarian governments are possible, one of the larger ethnic groups will become alienated because they will come to feel that they are substantially left out of the process of governance.
How, in this day and age, when theoretical and practical
During their stay here, the release said that the medical team also visited several health facilities in Region 4 to gain a better understanding of Guyana’s health sector.