PSM and Socialism in Malaysia

There seems to be a hike in interest over PSM due to recent ambiguous news with regards to its application to join Pakatan. This gave rise to a whole host of other discussions and questions, as can be observed by interviews with scholars and also with Arul himself. I would like to answer two of these questions: 1) Is socialism still relevant in Malaysia and 2) Should PSM merge with Pakatan?

Is Socialism still relevant in Malaysia?

This question appears to be a simple closed-ended question which can be answered in a Yes/No fashion. However, I think that such a question actually hints at some deep-rooted Malaysian concerns i.e. the historical association between socialism and communism, as well as the recent “poor performance” of the PSM in GE13. In other words, the question is representative of a doubt to the legitimacy and indeed, need to have a socialist agenda in Malaysia. By introducing the basic idea of socialism, I hope to be able to dispel some of these doubts.

The failure of capitalism

Regardless of the different factions of socialisms, it is safe to say that they all agree on one basic, unifying premise: that capitalism, in actual fact, is an entity which allows for power and wealth to be unfairly dominated by a very small segment of people – this in turn causes a highly unequal societal structure and an ever widening income gap between the rich and the poor.

The Bosses of the Senate

In addressing this problem of economic inequality and income disparity, Occupy Wall Street has come up with a slogan that aptly explains the capitalist failures so adamantly repeated by socialists: “We are the 99%”. The slogan helps us put things into Malaysian context: power (in the loose sense of the term) is being held by the rich and politically-able BN leaders; in other words, corrupt officials.

The perceived issues with PSM

Perhaps the point of contention which would be raised by concerned citizens is the seemingly radical thoughts and methods employed by that of a socialist (after all, it gave rise to communism). In a largely moderate and centrist Malaysia, such radical ideologies might seem impractical and even harmful. Taken at face value, Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim’s answer to an interview may sound like a terrorist attempt: “we don’t just want to fine-tune the system; we want to overhaul the system”. To read it in such a way, of course, is to take it out of context. PSM is typical of democratic socialism – one that advances socialist agendas, minus the authoritarian characteristics which transforms it to communism.

With that, my answer to the question is: “Yes, it is still relevant”. As long as there remains an unequal distribution of income between classes, and a majority of the wealth is in the hands of the powerful and corrupt, then socialism remains an antithetical existence that opposes such powers.

Should Parti Sosialis Malaysia merge with Pakatan?

While Arul attributes the decrease in results to some PAS members being disagreeable to PSM contending under Pakatan and the three-cornered fight in some areas it were contending in, I think these are factors that skirt around the actual issue. The main issue is the perception of voters towards PSM; as of now, the public simply can’t view PSM as a viable force in the wider scheme of governance. After all, PSM remains a grass-roots based organization which works in a very bottom-up manner.

It seems then, that PSM is put in a very precarious position, of having to conform and appeal to the mainstream public or to be resolute as a “principled party” as Arul would put it. To gain mainstream appeal and a wider recognition, perhaps it may make more sense to merge with Pakatan; it’s always easier for people to pick between two coalitions in a contest. It becomes slightly more difficult when one has to consider multiple issues – in addition to the initial “should I kick or keep the government?”, the voter has to consider also “which party is better at kicking the government? And how else is everyone else going to vote? What if I vote for PSM and someone else votes for Keadilan and the votes gets split?” This is a classic case of the prisoners’ dilemma in real life; and more often than not, situations like this create more losers than winners. If avoiding such situations, having assured seats and mainstream appeal is what PSM is chasing after, then perhaps it may make more sense to join Pakatan.

On the other hand, we also need to consider the perceived methodological differences which may separate PSM from the rest of the opposition parties. Arul’s contention that PSM is ideologically similar to various factions of PKR and PAS is really an understatement – it only seems so on the surface. This is really only because of the largely centrist outcomes which are populist and also class-based.

When it really matters most, however – the center-dwellers are proponents of a pragmatic politicking, one that views outcome and consensus among the people as the most important (hence, the populist tag). The centrists can view an issue from a variety of standpoints ranging from centre left to centre right; a Marxist can only attribute issues to an economic imbalance between classes.  As a consequence, the method employed in countering such issues would also be largely different than that of Pakatan.

To summarize, the issues that tie the two questions above is really linked to a dwindling of socialist thought throughout the world. In a Malaysian context, my suggestion would probably be to have PSM as a separate party from Pakatan altogether. Socialist votes are dwindling in many places around the world, but in terms of politicking, PSM is an admirable party which places importance on the grassroots (which is uncommon among the mainstream parties who are currently advocating wider change as a whole).

It is also a symbol of a surviving socialist thought which can still have considerable impact. We wouldn’t want such impacts to be dulled by a moderate “governing body” over a critical leftist agenda. Mainstream appeal has to be secondary to the philosophies that bind a political party – if not, PSM members may as well join PKR or DAP.

In my view, PSM is the spokesperson for the 99% of the population subject to oppression, and it can’t be buying into any remotely capitalist agendas to advocate change. In the words of Oscar Wilde from The Soul of Man under Socialism: “It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.”

The Illusion of Hierarchy and Power-over-Others

The perception of hierarchy is created only by like-minded individuals who serve the capitalist dream. This is, ultimately an illusion – for no one, in actual fact, is more powerful than another.

Pyramid of Capitalist System

Status, power and money are merely “labels” – they don’t mean anything but are so widely used that they become pervasive in our lives. I see this as the problem with the entrepreneurial (capitalist) spirit; it is a celebration of the selfish desire to win over others, entice and eventually normalize people from “below” to play the same game they do. Just like a direct selling game, once you’re in it – you ARE IT.

If you chose to be powerful in the capitalist sense, it is easy to do so. You merely need to follow a bureaucratic, capitalist framework and immerse yourself in the system. With experience, you will eventually have power over other people, bearing in mind that you will still be overshadowed by some other powerful figures. Why I say this is an illusion is precisely because of this – in an effort to be more dominant than others, one forgets that their ultimate adversary is themselves. This is why, my friends, I am against a capitalist world.

The world of capitalism is made up of systems which destroy whatever remains of our unique selves. The race to the top of the hierarchy is one where we try to become an embodiment of an illusory ideal commonly contributed to by everyone else.

But doesn’t this become a fulfilment of other people’s expectations of power?

Power, in this case is nothing but a social construction. It can never exist if there are none willing to be subservient to another. What we have to do is understand that we have self-worth, and that there are always acts of resistance that we can exemplify in any situation where we’re oppressed. If there are none willing to be slaves, there can be no lords.