Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Independent"
channel.
-
88
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
One can have the 70s economic policies w/o the constant strikes and hassle - Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Nordic countries, Netherlands, Belgium ... did JUST FINE. - In my country, Austria, we have a thing that is called the Social Contract. Pretty much the same in Germany (we had a very popular left government in the 70s, the Germans had more often than not the Conservatives in the governmnet - our economic history is pretty much the same, recently we are doing better than Germany.
Moderation and considering the needs of the other side is required from both sides - the manufacturers/businesses and the workers.
It is true that the Labour Movement in the US and in the UK did the heavy lifting (under a lot of pressure and hostility) until the beginning of 1900. - after WW1 the Social Democratic Party and unions (who had been forbidden under the monarchy) emerged in Austria. - It may be a more conciliatory mindset of the population - or a less brutal history of the Labour movement and less ressentment from the side of the employers that makes sure that people on BOTH sides are more willing to negotiate.
Intense hostility against Labour movements breeds militant union leadership. - And the UK is a country where contempt for the lower class played a major role
Plus the ruthlessness with which the Tories executed their neoliberal agenda (since the 1980s) was unknown on the continent. - in the 80s the US and the UK were on the forefront of neoliberalism, the wealthy European countries were still holding up the Social Democratic principles - and it does not matter if the government was conservative or not . That - and that unlike the US and UK we did not follow the rush to industrialize - kept the worst of neoliberalism at bay.
3
-
3
-
1/2 The ART of DEFLECTION and RELATIVISM: How to talk down/belittle the plight of the afflicted and to discredit them. - Homo sapiens is a DEEPLY SOCIAL being. The Tories, New Labour (and all other Champaign Socialists worldwide) must not be ashamed of having to go the extra (argumentative) mile. The effor needed to battle their inclinations towards compassion and empathy. - It is a "survival of the species" thing, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution formed us to be deeply caring and solidaric beings - towards our TRIBE members.
Good thing is: Evolution prepared us to function - and behave very well, socially and generously and with empathy - in a small group of 10, 20, maybe 100 people. Our TRIBE ! And being shamed by our PEERS is still one of the most effective means to get people in line and behave themselves. However, the instinctive definition of PEERS has changed in the history of mankind.
Your PEERS were the TRIBE members in the Ice Age (and you bet they kept good relations with their neighbours, they did not have time or energy for nonsense like war). Same is true for the Inuit and the Aborigines in Australia: if survival is hard and keeps folks really busy, humans find PEACEFUL and AGREEABLE and COOPERATIVE ways to co-exist.
These days the PEERS of the Tory leadership are the neighbourhood (all in cushy homes), their fellows in the City of London, aka the rentier / financier / speculator class, the former school collegues (expensive private education of course), the fraternity, ..... Your party members, the lobbyists, the pals of the media (educated in the same schools), the members of the (Country) Club, the gang of fox hunters, ....
The inconvenient bouts of compassion are effectively counteracted with a solid base in ideology. Mainstream media, academia, and of course all important institutions, have been infiltrated with TRIBE members (especially since the 80s) to assist in that noble effort.
So you only have to find a reason to
a) dismiss the plight of the afflicted (they not really THAT bad off), they are lying or exaggerating
b) to make them the "other" (they are really disgusting, hardly humans, they talk "in an unpleasant manner", have uncough habits, they drink, smoke, swear, they are not as knowledgeable as we are, they do not have a posh accent. They are RIDICULOUS - or potentially CRIMINAL - in short UNDESERVING of COMPASSION.
This is the function of "othering". If the "other" is hardly "human" than the instinctive rules of compassion and FAIRNESS do no apply. It is also used in war, "collateral damage", soft targets (meaning HUMANS), the "enemy".
It is almost impossible for a Homo Sapiens to see another human being as "someone like me" - and then go and treat them unfairly. Our evolutionary setup (Under all circumstances treat a tribe member well !) prevents that. Like I said, this is a survival of the species thing.
c) victim blaming -which is a variety of b) - we are wired to really, really feel bad when we see another human suffering - the solution: live in your bubble, make sure you must never endure to see beggars and poor people (even middle class people can get VERY UPSET when they see beggars, even if they do "quiet" begging, just sitting there, and even if they are not smelly or dirty - it is the unconscious attempt to BLOCK OUT the knowledge that others have it not as good as them. The normal human reaction is to either help and if you do not help, uneasyness, shame, guilt. In intimate situations - in groups where people know each other - it usually makes Homo Sapiens DO SOMETHING to help his fellows and avoid those uncomfortable feelings. In our anonymous, fractured society (not the tribe of 20 or 100 anymore !) that is not always possible. So folks developed strategies to deflect and SUPPRESS and transfrom the urge to help fellow humans.
If it is THEIR FAULT then you do not have to feel (that) bad about their plight. Although that strategy is not completely effective - SUPPRESSION works better, so most people usually make very sure they do not have to SEE or KNOW to much about the misery of others. (That is even true for folks who want to remain open and compassionate: There is so much misery on the world - and modern means of communication let us know about them if we want to know - that all of us must censor as self-protection. We simply would be overwhelmed especially if we stay true to our human nature.)
People like the Tory establishment do not use their intellect and education to KNOW - they use it to UN-KNOW and to twist and to deflect.
d) claim things are unfortunate but the world cannot be altered so the wealthy have to resign themselves to the fact that others are suffering (and usually they can resign themselves just fine from the comfort of their own position).
The argument goes like this: God meant it that way, that there would be some doing well or very well and most would be miserable. God also made some people better and wiser than others - they are all born in the same aristocratic families - so the unwashed masses must obey them. They deserve positions of leadership and unearned wealth. - That line of argumentation does not work so well anymore - now it is the "realities of the markets", "we need to appease the financial sector and Capital - Capital is a shy deer and flees the moment it senses danger "- Danger meaning less profit of course.
The "invisible hand of the markets", globalization is "inevitable" - No, it is a manmade invention. * (see next post)
2
-
* 2/2 "Globalization", "Financialization" "Free Trade" Deals - and selfish politicians fooling themselves to overcome their empathic human nature (as for the psychology of - political and other - selfishness also see former post)
Politics colluded with Big Biz to pit the workforce of the wealthy countries against the desperate workforce of poor countries. "Free trade deals" protect the investment of Western companies in exotic countries, when they close plants at home and "outsource" jobs. These deals guarantee that the products manufactured under sweatshop conditions, will never be hit with a prohibitive tariff when they are then exported to the wealthy countries.
You see, the recipe that built the First World after WW2 - if businesses are doing well, the workers will get their fair share - was not applied with "globalization" and "free trade". No, those workers in the developing countries are continuously paid starvation wages. In these countries it is easy to crush unions. - That means that - unlike lucky Western Europe, U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan - there is no consumer base with enough wages to soak up the production in the poor countries - most of these products MUST BE EXPORTED to wealthier countries.
Now, there is of course the danger that some future governments in those wealthier countries might be pressured to resist the outsourcing and increasing unemployment (and pressure on the wages in general) at home. So they might slap tariffs or import restrictions on the sweatshop products.
That is what the "free trade deals" are for: they made sure that governments GAVE UP that authority and power to protect the domestic workforce and the citizens. Even after a trade deal is quitted, the rules of the trade deal still apply for a very long time - usually 30 years - which is insane, since manufacturing plants are not written off over 30 years, but over much shorter time. And the multinationals (they just have to open a letterbox company anywhere to get the status of an "afflicted party") can sue the governments for financial compensation.
The Western governments voluntarily gave up their power to stand up to the Multinationals to protect the voters.
Some politicians were duped (and very willing to be duped). I guess a lot of them used deflection and twisting of information and economics to NOT KNOW what "financialization" and "globalization" meant for their the majority of the population - after all standing up against globalization, and all the other buzzword economic looting was not in fashion in the 1980s - 1990s in Continental Euroe - until the financial crisis.
On the other hand the politicians / the party were financially rewarded when they sold out the common people. That includes cushy positions for ex-politicians - politicians might lose elections or just want to make more money than is possible as politician. (Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Gerhard Schroeder, ...) Big Biz took care of that, the politicians took care of Big Biz as long as they were in office.
Before sell-out politicians trick others, they have to trick themselves into believing that the things that are so lucrative and advantageous for their own career, are also good economics policy for the country. Again: the function of "infiltrated" Mainstream Media and academia is to help out with that dilemma. (Only on the internet you hear the dissenting voices - increasingly since the financial crisis).
And finally there may be some sociopathic individuals, who have the intellectual honesty to KNOW EXACTELY WHAT THEY WERE/ARE DOING.
But unless you have sociopathy at your disposal, your human nature really requires that you FOOL YOURSELF about your selfish actions. Intellect and a "good" education can be very helpful to perform that self-deception.
Next time you hear about "globalization" - the Germans, Austrians, Swiss, the Nordic States, the Japanese built their famous EXPORT INDUSTRY after WW2 - in a time when there was a lot of protectionism going on. Only somewhat ! free markets in combination with a lot of protectionism and regulation. Like a lot of import quotas, tariffs, import restrictions. Capital was not "free" to flow where the "financiers" and the "financial institutions" wanted it to flow. The banking sector was STRICTLY regulated.
Currency exchange rates were set until the 70s by governments (much more rational than leaving it to the speculators). There was some speculation going on on the U.S. stock market, but the speculation was with SHARES of real companies. These days they make all sorts of bets, the governments are unwilling to reign in the casino, and the central banks enable the casino in the first place by throwing cheap money at the "markets" (nothing like a market, not at all).
The advantage of these - and all other - bets on the financial "markets": the number of shares availble for trade on the stock exchange is naturally limited. On the other hand: the number of bets you can place on these shares (or currencies, interest rates, SUBPRIME U.S. MORTGAGES, commodities ....) is not limited in that manner. It is only limited by the amount of cheap money available, and by regulation - and all Western governments and central banks are a) either colluding with and praising the circus, or b) unwilling to stop it and to cross the financier class and the top 1 %, or c) they seem to be too economic illiterate to understand what is going on.
A lot of wealth has been sucked out of the lower and middle income class and from the poor countries and up to the top (in every country - at the top ot the food chain nationality is insignificant, Multinationals and rich people are not really patriotic - they are part of the worlwide 1 %, or 5 %, or 10 %).
"The capital" is in DESPERATE search of good investments. Only very large companies are listed on the stock exchange. There are just not enough good, solid, investment opportunities (for PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRIES) as compared to the 1960s or 1970s. The disposable income of consumers in the rich countries is in decline (due to outsourcing wages are stagnant, and more people are on unemployment benefits. Also education and housing has become an "investment opportunity" for the "haves" thus reducing even more the disposable income of the just-about-managing).
And the workers of poor countries never had a chance to even make it to a level of modest wealth. Not even in the "Capitalistic success story" China - yes they have wealthy and rich people (fleeing the country and buying "Golden Visas" in the U.S.). They also have some middle class. And 70 % of the country is as poor as ever.
So the sweatshop workers do not DECLINE from a volume of disposable income - they never had it to begin with.
We have worldwide over capacities in industrial manufacturing (it also shows in the concentration process in the industries) - in comparsion to the disposable income of consumers worldwide.
1
-
1
-
1