828cloud

Data, Info and News of Life and Economy

Tag Archives: Capitalism

How Capitalism Drives Cancel Culture

Helen Lewis wrote . . . . . . . . .

Tumbrels are rattling through the streets of the internet. Over the past few years, online-led social movements have deposed gropers, exposed bullies—and, sometimes, ruined the lives of the innocent. Commentators warn of “mob justice,” while activists exult in their newfound power to change the world.

Both groups are right, and wrong. Because the best way to see the firings, outings, and online denunciations grouped together as “cancel culture” is not through a social lens, but an economic one.

Take the fall of the film producer Harvey Weinstein, which seems inevitable in hindsight—Everyone knew he was a sex pest! There were even jokes about it on 30 Rock! But it took The New York Times months of reporting to ready its first story for publishing; the newspaper was taking on someone with deep pockets and a history of intimidating critics into silence. Then the story went off like a hand grenade. Suddenly, the mood—and the economic incentives—shifted. People who had been afraid of Weinstein were instead afraid of being taken down alongside him.

The removal of Weinstein from his company, and his subsequent conviction for rape, is a good outcome. But the mechanism it revealed is more morally ambiguous: The court of public opinion was the only forum left after workplace protections and the judicial system had failed. The writer Jon Schwarz once described the “iron law of institutions,” under which people with seniority inside an institution care more about preserving their power within the institution than they do about the power of the institution as a whole. That self-preservation instinct also operates when private companies—institutions built on maximizing shareholder value, or other capitalist principles—struggle to acclimatize to life in a world where many consumers vocally support social-justice causes. Progressive values are now a powerful branding tool.

But that is, by and large, all they are. And that leads to what I call the “iron law of woke capitalism”: Brands will gravitate toward low-cost, high-noise signals as a substitute for genuine reform, to ensure their survival. (I’m not using the word woke here in a sneering, pejorative sense, but to highlight that the original definition of wokeness is incompatible with capitalism. Also, I’m not taking credit for the coinage: The writer Ross Douthat got there first.) In fact, let’s go further: Those with power inside institutions love splashy progressive gestures—solemn, monochrome social-media posts deploring racism; appointing their first woman to the board; firing low-level employees who attract online fury—because they help preserve their power. Those at the top—who are disproportionately white, male, wealthy, and highly educated—are not being asked to give up anything themselves.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the random firings of individuals, some of whose infractions are minor, and some of whom are entirely innocent of any bad behavior. In the first group goes the graphic designer Sue Schafer, outed by The Washington Post for attending a party in ironic blackface—a tone-deaf attempt to mock Megyn Kelly for not seeing what was wrong with blackface. Schafer, a private individual, was confronted at the party over the costume, went home in tears, and apologized to the hosts the next day. When the Post ran a story naming her, she was fired. New York magazine found numerous Post reporters unwilling to defend the decision to run the story—and plenty of unease that the article seemed more interested in exonerating the Post than fighting racism. Even less understandable is the case of Niel Golightly, the communications chief at the aircraft company Boeing, who stepped down over a 33-year-old article arguing that women should not serve in the military. When Barack Obama, a notably progressive president, only changed his mind on gay marriage in the 2010s, how many Americans’ views from 1987 would hold up to scrutiny by today’s standards?

This mechanism is not, as it is sometimes presented, a long-overdue settling of scores by underrepresented voices. It is a reflexive jerk of the knee by the powerful, a demonstration of institutions’ unwillingness to tolerate any controversy, whether those complaining are liberal or conservative. Another case where the punishment does not fit the offense is that of the police detective Florissa Fuentes, who reposted a picture from her niece taken at a Black Lives Matter protest. One of those pictured held a sign reading who do we call when the murderer wear the badge. Another sign, according to the Times, “implied that people should shoot back at the police.” Fuentes, a 30-year-old single mother of three children, deleted the post and apologized, but was fired nonetheless.

In the second group, the blameless, lies Emmanuel Cafferty, a truck driver who appears to have been tricked into making an “okay” symbol by a driver he cut off at a traffic light. The inevitable viral video claimed that this was a deliberate use of the symbol as a white-power gesture, and he was promptly fired. Cafferty is a working-class man in his 40s from San Diego. The loss of his job hit him hard enough that he saw a counselor. “A man can learn from making a mistake,” he told my colleague Yascha Mounk. “But what am I supposed to learn from this? It’s like I was struck by lightning.”

The phrase is haunting—not being racist is not going to save you if the lightning strikes. Nor is the fact that your comments lie decades in the past, or that they have been misinterpreted by bad-faith actors, or that you didn’t make them. The ground—your life—is scorched just the same.

It is strange that “cancel culture” has become a project of the left, which spent the 20th century fighting against capricious firings of “troublesome” employees. A lack of due process does not become a moral good just because you sometimes agree with its targets. We all, I hope, want to see sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination decrease. But we should be aware of the economic incentives here, particularly given the speed of social media, which can send a video viral, and see onlookers demand a response, before the basic facts have been established. Afraid of the reputational damage that can be incurred in minutes, companies are behaving in ways that range from thoughtless and uncaring to sadistic. For Cafferty’s employer, what’s one random truck driver versus the PR bump of being able to cut off a bad news cycle by saying you’ve fired your “white-supremacist employee”?

Let’s look at another example of how woke capitalism operates. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, and the protests that followed, White Fragility, a 2018 book by Robin DiAngelo, returned to the top of The New York Times’ paperback-nonfiction chart. The author is white, and her book is for white people, encouraging them to think about what it’s like to be white. So the American book-buying public’s single biggest response to the Black Lives Matter movement was … to buy a book about whiteness written by a white person.

This is worse than mere navel-gazing; it’s synthetic activism. It risks making readers feel full of piety and righteousness without having actually done anything. Buying a book on white fragility improves the lives of the most marginalized far less than, say, donating to a voting-rights charity or volunteering at a food bank. It’s pure hobbyism.

Why is DiAngelo’s book so popular? Again, look at economics. White Fragility is a staple of formal diversity training, in universities from London to Iowa, and at publications including Britain’s right-wing Telegraph newspaper, as well as The Atlantic. The client list on DiAngelo’s website includes giant corporations such as Amazon and Unilever; nonprofits such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Hollywood Writers Guild, and the YMCA; and institutions and governmental bodies such as Seattle Public Schools, the City of Oakland, and the Metropolitan Council of Minneapolis.

In the United States, diversity training is worth $8 billion a year, according to Iris Bohnet, a public-policy professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School. And yet, after studying programs in both the U.S. and post-conflict countries such as Rwanda, she concluded, “sadly enough, I did not find a single study that found that diversity training in fact leads to more diversity.” Part of the problem is that although those delivering them are undoubtedly well-meaning, the training programs are typically no more scientifically grounded than previous management-course favorites, such as Myers-Briggs personality classifications. “Implicit-bias tests” are controversial, and the claim that they can predict real-world behavior, never mind reduce bias, is shaky. A large-scale analysis of research in the sector found that “changes in implicit measures are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior.” Yet metrics-obsessed companies love these forms of training. When the British Labour leader, Keir Starmer, caused offense by referring to Black Lives Matter as a “moment” rather than a movement, he announced that he would undergo implicit-bias training. It is an approach that sees bias as a moral flaw among individuals, rather than a product of systems. It encourages personal repentance, rather than institutional reform.

Bohnet suggested other methods to increase diversity, such as removing ages and photographs from job applications, and reviewing the language used for advertisements. (Men are more likely to see themselves as “assertive,” she argued.) Here is another option for big companies: Put your money into paying all junior staff enough for them to live in the big city where the company is based, without needing help from their parents. That would increase the company’s diversity. Hell, get your staff to read White Fragility on their own time and give your office cleaners a pay raise.

This, however, would break the iron law of woke capitalism—better to have something you can point to and say “Aren’t we progressive?” than to think about the real problem. Diversity training offers the minimum possible disruption to your power structures: Don’t change the board; just get your existing employees to sit through a seminar.

If this is a moment for power structures to be challenged, and old orthodoxies to be overturned, then understanding the difference between economic radicalism and social radicalism is vital. This could also be described as the difference between identity and class. That is not to dismiss the former: Many groups face discrimination on both measures. Women might not be hired because “Math isn’t for girls” or because an employer doesn’t want to pay for maternity leave. An employer may not see the worth of a minority applicant, because they don’t speak the way the interviewer expects, or that applicant might be a second-generation immigrant whose parents can’t subsidize them through several years of earning less than a living wage.

All this I’ve learned from feminism, where the contrast between economic and social radicalism is very apparent. Equal pay is economically radical. Hiring a female or minority CEO for the first time is socially radical. Diversity training is socially radical, at best. Providing social-housing tenants with homes not covered in flammable cladding is economically radical. Changing the name of a building at a university is socially radical; improving on its 5 percent enrollment rate for Black students—perhaps by smashing up the crazy system of legacy admissions—would be economically radical.

In my book Difficult Women, I wrote that the only question I want to ask big companies who claim to be “empowering the female leaders of the future” is this one: Do you have on-site child care? You can have all the summits and power breakfasts you want, but unless you address the real problems holding working parents back, then it’s all window dressing.

Along with anti-racism and anti-sexism efforts, LGBTQ politics suffers a similar confusion between economic and social radicalism. The arrival of Pride month brings the annual argument about how it should be a “protest, not a parade.” The violence and victimization of the Stonewall-riot era risk being forgotten in today’s “branded holiday,” where big banks and clothing manufacturers fly the rainbow flag to boost their corporate image. In Britain and the U.S., these corporate sponsors want a depoliticized party—a generic celebration of love and acceptance—without tough questions about their views on particular domestic laws and policies, or their involvement in countries with poor records on LGBTQ rights. Some activists in Britain have tried to get Pride marches to stop allowing the arms company BAE to be a sponsor, given its arms sales to Saudi Arabia, an explicitly homophobic and sexist state. When Amazon sponsored last year’s PinkNews Awards, the former Doctor Who screenwriter Russell T. Davies used his lifetime-achievement-award acceptance speech to tell the retailer to “pay your fucking taxes.” That’s economic radicalism.

Activists regularly challenge criticisms of “cancel culture” by saying: “Come on, we’re just some people with Twitter accounts, up against governments and corporate behemoths.” But when you look at the economic incentives, almost always, the capitalist imperative is to yield to activist pressure. Just a bit. Enough to get them off your back. Companies caught in the scorching light of a social-media outcry are like politicians caught lying or cheating, who promise a “judge-led inquiry”: They want to do something, anything, to appear as if they are taking the problem seriously—until the spotlight moves on.

Some defenestrations are brilliant, and long overdue. Weinstein’s removal from a position of power was undoubtedly a good thing. But the firing of Emmanuel Cafferty was not. For activists, the danger lies in the cheap sugar rush of tokenistic cancellations. Real institutional change is hard; like politics, it is the “slow boring of hard boards.” Persuading a company to toss someone overboard for PR points risks a victory that is no victory at all. The pitchforks go down, but the corporate culture remains the same. The survivors sigh in relief. The institution goes on.

If you care about progressive causes, then woke capitalism is not your friend. It is actively impeding the cause, siphoning off energy, and deluding us into thinking that change is happening faster and deeper than it really is. When people talk about the “excesses of the left”—a phenomenon that blights the electoral prospects of progressive parties by alienating swing voters—in many cases they’re talking about the jumpy overreactions of corporations that aren’t left-wing at all.

Remember the iron law of woke institutions: For those looking to preserve their power, it makes sense to do the minimum amount of social radicalism necessary to survive … and no economic radicalism at all. The latter is where activists need to apply their pressure.


Source : The Atlantic

從「資本主義」四重危機反思「一國兩制」

作者: 鄧峰 . . . . . . . . .

今年是「一國兩制」構想者、已故中共最高領導人鄧小平「九二南巡」30周年,重溫當時的「南方講話」,有助大家重新認識「一國兩制」當中「社會主義」和「資本主義」的關係。

30年前,面對東歐劇變、蘇聯解體,國際社會主義陣營轟然倒塌,社會主義思潮陷入前所未有危機的情勢下,但鄧小平依然認為「社會主義經歷一個長過程發展後必然代替資本主義」,相信「世界上贊成馬克思主義的人會多起來」。這背後顯然不只是因為他自少年時代便堅信社會主義,並受到20世紀世界社會主義運動的召喚,還因為他相信社會主義比資本主義更符合多數人的期待。

眾所周知,社會主義本是對資本主義的一種反抗和超越。在18、19世紀,西方資本主義野蠻生長和原始積累時期,面對當時日益嚴重的社會矛盾和貧富分化、底層困苦問題,社會主義作為一種寄託許多人理想的思潮開始產生。不論是最初的空想社會主義,還是馬克思(Karl Heinrich Marx)、恩格斯(Friedrich Engels)提出的科學社會主義,莫不如此。進入20世紀,列寧(Lenin)發起俄國革命,建立蘇聯社會主義體制,第一次讓社會主義從理念、工人運動轉化為具體的國家實踐。

遺憾的是,憑藉以計劃經濟為基礎的高度集中的政治經濟體制,蘇聯雖然一度大放異彩,在短時間內快速實現工業化,與美國主導的資本主義陣營並駕齊驅,但終究還是眼看他起高樓,眼看他宴賓客,眼看他樓塌了。蘇聯及其主導的國際社會主義陣營轟然解體後,社會主義在世界範圍內被許多人貼上落後、失敗的標籤,彷彿資本主義才是人類的未來或宿命。但從蘇聯解體30年以來,世界範圍內資本主義狂飆突進的情況來看,想必很多人都難以對資本主義的未來抱持信心。

當然,這樣說絕不是要重回早已被歷史證明不可行的蘇聯模式社會主義,而是說資本主義未必是人類的宿命,人類應該在借鑑資本主義經驗的基礎上探索更好的未來。

毫無疑問,就像馬克思所說的「資產階級在它的不到一百年的階級統治中所創造的生產力,比過去一切世代創造的全部生產力還要多,還要大」,資本主義有其優點,能為經濟發展賦予極強的動能。而且自馬克思當年批判資本主義以來,資本主義早已發生許多改變,不完全是曾經那個被詬病「每一個毛孔都滴着產業工人的血和淚」的資本主義。尤其是羅斯福(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)新政和二戰後民權運動興起後,西方資本主義國家紛紛進行改良,吸收許多社會主義元素,以至於就普通民眾的生活水平來說,西方國家遠比當時的蘇聯更像社會主義。但自蘇東劇變後,社會主義被污名化,新自由主義大行其道,成為帶有某種意識形態宰制地位的風潮。

然而,在失去社會主義陣營作為競爭對手的時時反襯、督促和警示後,因新自由主義而膨脹的資本主義日益有倒退回馬克思那個時代的趨勢。法國經濟學家皮凱提(Thomas Piketty)的名作《二十一世紀資本論》已揭示出,新自由主義盛行以來資本主義國家的貧富分化嚴重程度日益倒退回19世紀。

當今世界資本主義至少包括四組難以克服的矛盾。

其一,資本主義勢必容易加劇的貧富兩極分化與人類社會對於公平的渴望之間的矛盾。儘管不同時期、不同形態的資本主義社會,貧富分化的嚴重程度並不相同,但不容迴避的是,以逐利為核心追求的資本,在經濟關係和經濟結構基本上均是私有制的社會形態下,必然會在不斷擴張過程中,產生和加劇貧富分化,甚至形成拼爹資本主義,即繼承財富的增長速度遠遠高於勞動收入,財富的多寡取決於繼承、出身而非後天的努力、勞動。但與此同時,渴望公平是基本人性,起碼的公平是社會穩定的基石。當資本主義產生的日益嚴重的貧富分化與人類對於公平的渴望狹路相逢,勢必問題叢生,嚴重妨礙社會穩定和民主機制的運行。為了應對這一問題,通常資本主義社會都會進行周期性的自我調節,以期緩和社會矛盾,但往往維持不了多久,治標不治本,社會依舊陷入某種周期性的溫水煮青蛙困境之中。

其二,資本主義經濟邏輯的假設前提是理性人,是市場主體能在自身理性的指引下做出明智的決斷,甚至說整個社會的所有市場參與者都有着同等的智慧、理性能力以及同樣豐富的訊息資源,才能達到理想的自由、平等競爭狀態,但無數事例已經反覆證明,人的理性是有限的,並深受非理性因素干擾,不同人的理性水平和掌握的訊息資源往往參差不齊。這樣既會造成貧富分化、壟斷、大魚吃小魚,又容易使得市場主體經常陷入羊群效應之中,出現各種不理性、盲目、狂熱、短視的行為,時不時導致周期性的經濟危機以及大量的低效活動、資源浪費、環境污染。

其三,逐利的資本主義將人和人的關係異化為狹隘、赤裸裸的經濟關係,但人和人的關係本應是複雜多維度的。無論哪個社會,一旦資本主義大行其道後,都難以避免將人異化為工具、商品,人不再是目的而是淪為手段,一個人在社會、團體和家庭中的地位和處境往往都被庸俗化、階級化,大眾對於金錢、資本趨之若鶩,財富多寡成為最主要的評判標準,溫情、道德、人生理想、精神追求均會被擠壓。

其四,資本的全球化、無國界和以民族國家為基本競爭單位的世界秩序的矛盾。在全球化進程下,資本尤其是金融資本利用現有民族國家體系的縫隙獲取最大利益。相較於受制於主權範圍的一個個具體的民族國家,資本是在全世界範圍內流動,變得比以往更不受控,更難以被有效節制和監管,比主權國家有更大的活動範圍和更靈活的運作體系,而主權國家為了發展本國經濟不得不依賴於全球化資本,在節制資本時要麼有心無力,要麼投鼠忌器,其結果是資本主義將全球納入其中,資本賺得盆滿缽滿,以往一國之內的階級分化,演變為全球範圍內的階級分化。

總之,資本主義雖然在激發人的積極性、主動性、建立經濟組織、促進經濟增長上,具有極強的動能,但以上四個難以克服的內在矛盾足以說明資本主義不應該也不會是人類的宿命。那些奉行資本主義的社會,只有不斷吸收公平正義、保障弱勢群體、人與自然和諧相處等因素,才能滿足世人對於美好生活不斷增長的需要。而這樣的資本主義會和社會主義愈來愈趨同。蘇東劇變所代表的國際社會主義陣營崩潰,不是社會主義的失敗,而只不過是蘇聯模式的社會主義體制的失敗,不能因為具體一些國家實踐的失敗就一概否定社會主義本身代表的理想性和超越性。

資本主義搭載新自由主義的政治快車,於蘇東劇變後盛行世界30年,幾乎沒有競爭對手,持續膨脹,造成了全球範圍內大量的深層次問題。今天,重新認識資本主義,在吸取蘇聯解體教訓的基礎上尋求另一種可能,具有強烈的現實意義,香港同樣如是。


Source : HK01

香港原有資本主義制度與深層次問題

作者: 周永新 . . . . . . . . .

香港的深層次問題是香港獨有的嗎?如果這些問題並非香港獨有,而是世界性的,例如人口老化,香港大可參照其他國家和地區的經驗,制定解決辦法;但如果這些問題與香港一些特殊情况有關連,例如房屋短缺,除借鑑其他國家和地區的經驗外,也應明白自己的特殊情况,這樣才能有效解決問題。

保持原有資本主義制度50年不變

這欄上兩篇文章提到,香港公認的深層次問題主要包括:一、是市民住屋困難、室內空間狹小;二、是人口老化嚴重、市民退休生活得不到保障;三、是工人收入偏低、貧富差距不斷擴大。無可否認,以上3個深層次問題有本身的普世性,但問題所以嚴重,與香港一些特殊情况明顯有關係,其中一個影響最大的因素,是《基本法》訂明:香港成為中華人民共和國特別行政區後,必須「……保持原有的資本主義制度和生活方式,五十年不變」(第5條)。

什麼是香港原有的資本主義制度?基本法沒有明確的解釋,但在香港必須「保持原有的資本主義制度」的條文後,第6條隨即說:「香港特別行政區依法保護私有財產權。」意思應該相當明顯,即香港原有的資本主義制度的最大特色,是私有財產必須受到保護,不可被他人或政府任意奪去。除此之外,基本法對於如何保持香港原有的資本主義制度,還有其他說法,這些說法或規定,可分以下3方面來分析:

第一,為了保持原有的資本主義制度,基本法多處用上「原有」兩字。尤其在第6章「教育、科學、文化、體育、宗教、勞工和社會服務」,內裏提到的組織和服務,條文指出特區成立後,仍應保持原有的安排和政策。例如第141條:「宗教組織可按原有辦法繼續興辦宗教院校、其他學校、醫院和福利機構以及提供其他社會服務」;專業制度方面,除已取得專業和執業資格者可保留原有資格外,特區政府也必須保留原有的專業制度(第142條);第145條:「香港特別行政區政府在原有社會福利制度的基礎上,根據經濟條件和社會需要,自行制定其發展、改進的政策。」

30年前的制度還應保留原狀嗎?

這些規定,在基本法訂立期間,也就是上世紀80年代,可說是香港市民的願望,理由並非因為這些制度都是好的,而是不願看見回歸後即出現大改變。但這樣一來,30多年前的制度,到了今天,特區政府還應一成不變保留原狀嗎?特區政府有否在原有制度上改善和發展?或是只懂抱殘守缺,令香港每向前走一步都舉步維艱?

第二,為了保持香港原有的資本主義制度,另一要求是特區成立後,政府的管治方式應與港英時代不會有太大分別。所以有這種想法,因基本法制訂時,港人擔心特區政府一旦偏離港英時代實行的「積極不干預」政策,大搞什麼在西方社會盛行的「福利國家」制度,香港便不是以往的資本主義社會了。因此,在基本法中,多處都有防止特區政府「大有作為」的條文,例如第107條:「香港特別行政區的財政預算以量入為出為原則,力求收支平衡,避免赤字,並與本地生產總值的增長率相適應」;第108條:「香港特別行政區參照原在香港實行的低稅政策……」等。並且訂明,特區政府在發展上應起的作用,是「……提供經濟和法律環境,鼓勵各項投資、技術進步並開發新興產業」(第118條)。

也就是說,特區政府的功能是有限制的:開支不能長期超過收入,結構性財政赤字更應避免。曾蔭權出任特首時,特區政府曾公開宣布過往「積極不干預」政策不再適用,但要積極干預,卻不是特區政府的意圖;而特區政府奉行的政策,是「小政府、大市場」,並且認為這樣才符合基本法的要求。

重權利輕責任的資本主義制度

第三,為了保持香港原有的資本主義制度,過往多講權利、少講責任的習慣,便在特區成立後承襲下去。單看基本法第3章內所載居民的基本權利和義務,便可一清二楚。第3章共19條條文,其中18條與香港特區居民享有的權利有關,包括在法律面前一律平等,擁有選舉權和被選舉權,並享有言論、通訊、信仰、出入境等自由,新界原居民的合法傳統權益受保護。至於居民的責任,只有一條:「香港居民和在香港的其他人有遵守香港特別行政區實行的法律的義務」(第42條)。

為什麼權利這麼多、責任這麼少?原因只有一個,就是要安撫當時港人的恐懼——恐怕特區成立後,港人原有的權利會驟然消失!而為了防避將來政府可能加諸他們身上的限制,所以連在港英管治下沒有的自由和權利,也一併寫入基本法;關於自己應負的責任,則愈少愈好——守法是任何地方居民都應遵守的義務。這種重權利輕責任的資本主義制度,到了特區成立,又變成怎麼一回事?

回頭看,基本法這樣訂明香港必須保持原有的資本主義制度,有錯嗎?基本法沒有錯——為了避免過渡期可能出現的震盪,及確保香港長期繁榮和穩定,保持原有的資本主義制度是必須的!可惜,這樣穩妥的安排,到了執行時,卻變成一套無法超越的規範:執行者只懂墨守成規,於是造成今天深層次問題叢生的局面——民生無法改善,而香港往日的光輝不再,變成衰敗的都會。這樣,執行者錯在哪裏?

錯誤演繹原有資本主義制度

一、是錯誤演繹保持原有資本主義制度的意思——只懂保持、不懂發展。以筆者熟悉的社會福利為例,特區成立24年,各項與民生息息相關的制度,包括房屋、醫療、社會保障和福利服務,市民看見的,無一不是出現「僵化」現象——問題愈積愈多,政府也無法解決,就是社會提出建設性的改良辦法,官員總以諸多理由推搪,甚至認為建議有違香港原有的資本主義制度。

二、是政府常以基本法中「保持收支平衡」作為擋箭牌,否定一切「收入二次分配」的提案。政府的財政支出是「應使得使」,也就是沒有遠景,欠缺膽量以豐厚的財政儲備改善民生,不會採取積極的財政策略縮窄貧富差距。

三、是在社會多講權利、少講義務的氛圍下,市民漸漸忘記了自己對社會和國家的責任。結果,原有的資本主義制度,逐漸成為不少市民只顧自己利益的藉口;社會欠缺關懷和互助,港人怎會團結起來?

基本法是有生命的憲制文件,香港原有的資本主義制度也必須有活潑的演繹,否則凡事停留在上世紀80年代的狀况,香港的深層次問題怎會解決?香港怎會有燦爛的未來?


Source : 明報