We are Spartacus - We are Syriza

Market transactions are inherently unstable. Contrary to fantasy economics, as soon as circumstances allow a minority to leverage themselves into a stronger bargaining position, they will exploit others and push to get a bigger and bigger share out of any deals for themselves. Unless there are robust rules and regulations to maintain a level playing field, this minority will grow in wealth and power.

In the run-up to the Great Depression in the early 20th century, the wealthy elite reached the position where they were taking such a large share of the world’s wealth that the poor were unable to purchase the goods and services that were being produced. But instead of taking less in profit and paying more in wages, their one thought was to make more money by lending money to the have-nots who would then have to pay back with interest to the have-plentys.

Of course squeezing people’s pay and pushing them into debt was not, and never will be, a sustainable strategy. When the debt mountain reached crisis point (compounded by people borrowing money to gamble on stocks and shares), the world’s economy collapsed.

A century on, the financial elite have been at it again. Profits flow to the wealthy and powerful, and debts are piled on the poor and vulnerable. To prop up this one-sided system, austerity has been deployed to silence those who may otherwise object to such structural distortions. But the people who have been saddled with the bill of banking irresponsibility are not going to remain silent anymore.

In Greece, Syriza are demanding a fairer deal. What happens in their negotiations with the Eurogroup will have major implications for all of us. And in their quest for social justice and economic sanity, we are all Syriza.

In this context, a reliable source close to the negotiations at the 17 February 2015 Eurogroup meeting has asked for the following message to be shared widely so people know what is really going on:

“Dear all,
As you probably already know, tonight things did not go well at the Eurogroup 17 February. There are several rumors around, leaked documents which make the big picture confusing.

The following paragraphs give the basic story - which might change Europe's future in the coming weeks. Please forward this text to anyone who can contribute at spreading the word in the public domain:

As you may have heard things did not go well. There was a compromise deal brokered by Juncker and agreed to by Draghi and Lagarde and Moscovici. But it was sunk by Djisselbloem, presumably on German pressure. In the Eurogroup meeting and the subsequent press conference, there was little help from either Lagarde or Moscovici.

They say => complete the existing programme with some flexibility in implementation on our part but they never tell us what this flexibility will entail. On the contrary, they say sign first and then we will discuss with you areas of flexibility

We say => give us a bridging programme and we have spelt out our commitments not only during the bridging period but also for the essential elements of the new compact with our partners long term

We have done our best to reach a reasonable compromise. What we have faced is naked power and blackmail.”

Davos' Inferno

[Davos Davidson, whose family amassed a fortune from buying up privatised hospitals all over the world, died in one of them last night. An hour later, he found himself transported to the gates of hell. Behind a burning desk sat an angel with pristine white wings jutting out from behind her black leather jacket.]

A: Mr. Davos Davidson, I presume. We’ve been expecting you.

D: Listen, there’s been some mistake. I should be at the other place, not here. Now if you could rectify that immediately, I wouldn’t have to waste my time filing an official complaint.

A: I’m sorry you feel like that, sir, but you’re definitely at the right place. We have a clear record of what you’ve done your whole life.

D: I don’t like your tone, young lady. Get me your supervisor.

A: We self-supervise.

D: Why am I not surprised! This place reeks of shabby management. You won’t have receptionists working for me wearing a leather jacket on duty. Bet this is all part of some inefficient public monopoly.

A: There is no place for privatised operations around here. Old Nick tried to externalise part of our services once, but it didn’t quite go according to plan. You can speak to him about it yourself, he’s in charge of interrogating our inmates these days.

D: Move me to heaven now, and I’ll make a suitable transfer to your account.

A: Your money is no good here. And I should remind you that the sooner you accept what is in store for you and begin to show some remorse, the more chance you have of getting a probation hearing, say, a few hundred years from now.

D: Remorse? I’m a multi-billionaire, a wealth creator, an entrepreneur, not to mention a generous donor to my local parish church. I should have a prime site set aside for me. Put me through to God at once, or you’re going to get the sack.

A: Mr. Davos Davidson, all you have done in your life is to take advantage of the fact that you and your kind have dominated the market place between you, so people have to work for you for a pittance, while you take an ever-larger share of the proceeds generated by their labour. Your inherited land, houses, shares, and companies help to inflate your wealth, but you treat others left behind with utter contempt. Out of their insecurity and misery you keep making more profits.

D: I don’t want a commie rant from you. I want a word with God.

A: What I read out was a message from God to you.

D: That’s ridiculous! What about all my hospitals, they’re there day in, day out, easing pain and saving lives? That must count for something.

A: God knows all about your hospital work: how you donated large amounts to politicians who then sold public hospitals to you for a token sum. You then cut health workers pay, and charged patients exorbitant fees. Those who were penniless were turned away; and those who couldn’t pay the full fees for the consultation or operation given would be hit with high interest debt pursuits, with many losing their life savings and homes to your company.

D: Without people like me, the world would be full of dull, lazy people with no innovation or grandeur.

A: Actually, heaven is without people like you, and it’s simply divine – not that you’ll ever find out.

[The angel waved her hand, and Davos Davidson disappeared through the trap door opened beneath him. He was never seen again, except by that one-time entrepreneur, Old Nick.]

Debunking Culture Wars

Throughout history whenever an exploitative elite have found a way to amass wealth and power for themselves – through their control of weapons or markets – they have had to face up to a tricky question: how can they divert the exploited from joining forces and end their dominion?

If people could see what was happening – their common resources, the fruits of their combined labour, all taken over by a few who give them the odd crumbs in return – they would surely unite in rejecting the status quo. So the key is to divide them into rival camps amongst themselves and fan their animosity towards each other to such an extent that they pay little attention to the real oppressors.

And the easiest way to do this is to set alight the mythical flame of ‘Culture Clash’. The formula is simple enough. Tell people that they are wholly defined by some monolithic culture derived from their tribe, their ethnic customs, their country, their religion, or anything else that comes in handy. Make each group think that ‘their’ culture is so inherently precious that any hint that another cultural group may attempt to change it or deviate from it in words or deeds, must be met with dismay, outrage, or even aggression.

Once people succumb to the viral deception that their ‘own’ culture has all the answers and cannot possibly be modified or improved in any way whatsoever, their misguided loyalty to a mere label is ready to be channelled into ferocious hostilities against false enemies, leaving the oppressors to go on luxuriating in their mansions and palaces.

In reality, cultures are of course not hermetically-sealed entities. At any time, people carry with them a multitude of cultural tendencies which undergo continuous development. And in the light of on-going experiences, beliefs are revised, priorities are shifted, and inclinations are altered. Furthermore, these adaptations do not follow any single path. People reflect on their experiences, experiment with options, and learn new ways of thinking. In truth, rarely, if ever, do people of the same city, religion, country, or broadly the same skin tone, possess exactly the same interpretations of what their apparent cultural inheritance means.

So instead of allowing the world to be presented as composing of a series of self-contained cultures, each binding its exclusive ‘members’ to a uniform set of detailed beliefs and practices, we should teach everyone that what exists is a vast number of overlapping cultures – each offering a mix of notions that people associated with it interprets in their own ways, and all of them contributing elements which over time are combined or reconfigured in diverse manners.

Cultures do not in fact divide us into watertight, internally homogenous camps. Whatever ethnic background, tradition, religion, geographical attachment, customs and loyalties, people may in some sense share, they will also have differences within those groups just as they will have similarities with other groups. Cultural development, except perhaps under the most fanatical totalitarian regimes, has never been about moulding people into identikit followers of a single set of prescribed doctrines. On the contrary, multiplicity of cultures enable us to compare, contrast, revise and enrich our beliefs and dispositions.

There is no absolute culture, superior to others in all places for all time. Such a concept has only been put forward to fool people into diversionary conflicts. Once the illusion of ‘Culture’ as battle encampment has been removed, people will see where the real threat to their wellbeing lies.

Politics: what is it good for?

The politics of Robinson Crusoe, the original rugged individualism, can only get you so far provided you are kept relatively isolated from other people. But when we have pervasive proximity to others in everyday life, rapid transportation to reach diverse areas, and 24/7 media linkages across the world, isolation is not an option.

We have to live with others. The only question is how. The most optimistic amongst us like to dream that if there were no government around, everyone would cooperate in perfect harmony. Their naivety is sadly exposed by the regrettable, but quite undeniable, existence of exploiters who would never miss a chance to take unfair advantage of others. Using force, stealth, or deception, they would feed off the labour of others while accumulating ever more land, wealth and power for themselves.

Nine years before Crusoe’s creator, Daniel Defoe, was born, the dangers of leaving people to do as they pleased without any kind of law and enforcement were vividly dissected by Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 book, Leviathan. It would not matter if there were saintly people who would always put the interests of others first, or the majority of people would prefer to live in peace with others, so long as some were inclined to cheat, manipulate or dominate others, everyone would have to submit to endless mistreatment or fight back by whatever means available.

On Hobbes’ analysis, even well-meaning people could through misunderstanding end up mired in violent conflicts (he lived through the English Civil War). But while most of us would grant his conclusion that a government is therefore indispensable to make and enforce laws for the peace and wellbeing of all, few could go along with his prescription for giving the power of government to an absolute ruler.

If not an absolute ruler who can make decisions without challenge from anyone, Hobbes would ask, then who is to be entrusted with such power? The answer is: politics. Not politics in the distorted sense of ‘petty party political point-scoring’, or as a short-hand term for the unsavoury business of some professional politicians. To equate politics with such activities would be like treating medicine as what is practised by quacks and charlatans.

Politics is the art of organising society so that the people can govern themselves through a set of rulers who will look after their common interests by the laws and policies they institute. The progress of politics through the ages has consisted in it evolving more effective means to select and remove those with ruling powers peacefully. A key aspect of this has been to give the public the understanding and authority needed to judge and choose who they can count on most to guard against private encroachment and secure the public good.

Unfortunately it is this aspect of politics that has been most neglected for decades. As we saw in ‘The Voter Vanishes’, for example, in the UK nearly half those eligible to vote either don’t register to vote or don’t turn out to vote. For those who do vote, the majority are routinely disappointed that the parties they back don’t get to govern.

The physical wellbeing of people can only be advanced through a combination of medical training of the experts and health education for everyone. Similarly, the collective wellbeing of our society can only be improved with the help of leadership training for those in government positions, and political education for all citizens.

In partnership with the WEA (Workers’ Educational Association), the Question the Powerful project has developed a series of day schools under the title, ‘Politics: what is it good for?’, to engage people in taking a fresh look at political ideas and practices, and learning about why they should exercise their democratic power as voters. Each day school will explore:
• Political history: how did we get here?
• Political approaches: what options have we got?
• Political action and impact: why we can make a difference?
• Political imagination: which future awaits us?

If you would like to participate in one of these day schools or explore developing similar learning opportunities, you can find out more about the initiative here:
http://eastern.wea.org.uk/wea-news/news/2015/01/07/politics-what-is-it-good-for/

--
On leadership training for those in government positions, see article: ‘The Everest of Senior Public Service Management’

The Voter Vanishes

Democracy’s proudest achievement was to create the opportunity for everyone to play a part in determining who should rule, without resorting to violence. It is an achievement that many people across the world are still striving to emulate.

Yet ironically, in countries where democracy has in principle been established for centuries, the people who are already eligible to vote in elections have shown much less enthusiasm about the power to secure regime change peacefully.

Take a look, for example, at the British Parliament, which long ago inspired the development of democratically elected executives and legislatures around the globe.
In the four parliamentary elections held in the 1950s, turnouts averaged 80%. In the last three elections (2001, 2005, 2010) the average was 62%.

Some might say that despite the drop, 62% is still not too bad a figure in terms of providing some semblance of democratic legitimacy. But let us unpack the numbers to see what is really going on. Although 62% - of the people registered to vote - actually turned out to vote, many people who were eligible to vote had not even put themselves on the electoral register.

Most estimates put the proportion of people eligible to vote in the UK but not registered to vote at 15%. Taking this into account, it means that in the last three elections, only 52% of the people eligible to vote actually cast a vote, leaving 48% of eligible voters not voting (comprising 15% not registered, and 33% registered but not voting).

And furthermore, although on average the party that has gone on to form the government (or take the lead role in running a coalition government) in the last three elections won 39% of the votes cast, as a proportion of all the people who are eligible to vote that represents merely 20%.

So the UK, with its purported respect for democracy, is routinely governed these days by a political party with the electoral backing of merely 20% of all those eligible to vote. Of the remaining 80%: 15% of them omitted (deliberately or otherwise) to register to vote; 33% registered to vote but decided not to use that vote; and 32% voted for other parties they would prefer to see govern the country.

On the basis of there being around 40 million people in the UK who are eligible to vote, that translates to 8 million people backing the government of the day, and 4 times that number – 32 million people – opting not to give that government their support.

In case anyone thinks this is not a fair way to present the balance of votes cast, we should remember that in 2012 Conservative-led Government in Britain strongly criticised the National Union of Teachers when it went ahead with strike action after just 23% of its members voted in support of the strike. With many of the union members not voting, Conservative politicians attacked it for acting on the basis of a “paltry mandate”.

That is what many governments in modern ‘democracies’ are relying on for their right to govern – a paltry mandate.

If people want to put an end to the policies such governments push through, they should aim to rally enough support from the 80% of eligible voters who don’t back those currently in charge, and elect a different government. Even just getting a third of them on side would suffice, and that would already be a stronger mandate. Of course building a political platform and persuading people to back it would be more difficult than just yelling with no coherent policy alternatives to install. But ultimately, the problem with letting votes disappear into the ether is that it just allows those intent on serving the wealthy elite to retain power.

Between the Buddha & Camus

What truly divides us in politics is not some grand doctrine or unshakable party allegiance, but our core moral dispositions. Some see others in distress and pain, and instinctively assume such people have only got themselves to blame. And whatever evidence is produced to suggest the contrary, they will keep condemning them for countless deficiencies.

We recoil from such prejudice. When we witness suffering, we want to understand the underlying causes and find ways to overcome them. Unlike our detractors, we hesitate to proclaim ourselves ‘right’ about everything, for we merely seek to be as reasonable as we can under even the most trying circumstances.

But without the simplistic recourse of dismissing human misfortune as rooted in the flaws of scapegoats, we have to struggle to make sense of life’s seemingly endless stream of torment and affliction. Yet what can we do? However much we try to seek out amelioration and progress, the trials are interminable.

Two counsels have in the past proffered advice on this very problem. One is Gotama the Buddha, who observed that suffering was inescapable unless we were ready to attain nirvana through the extinguishing of desires and emotional turmoil. The other is Camus, who pointed out that life was inherently absurd without any meaning except for our defiance against injustice and oppression.

Gotama showed us the path to accepting the experiences that come our way and letting everything go without becoming perturbed. Camus reminded us that the only alternative to a meaningless existence is to engage in rebelling against the suffering confronting us.

What then are we to do? Keep fighting ignorance and exploitation knowing that, as in the myth of Sisyphus, our labours will never end with a final triumph? Or step back from the arena of conflicts even though that robs us of the moral purpose that underpins our existence?

Perhaps we should look beyond their apparent incompatibility and see them as two stages of a single journey. The coming of consciousness challenges us to respond to the causes and consequences of subjugation and suffering. At this point, there can be no surrender to the dominion of the powerful and the cruel. But when the time comes for us to exit, we should be ready to leave it to others to continue the campaign. Once we have completed our tour of duty, we should move on and embrace our own extinguishing.

If we retreat into nirvana when we are in the frontline battling the causes of avoidable suffering in this world, we betray ourselves. If we lament the contrived futility of not being around to fight on till the end of time, we deceive ourselves.

Between the Buddha and Camus, we have a pathway that leads us from the existential commitment to challenge the devious and the unjust, to the time when it is for us to embrace our own disengagement from the tumultuous combat. We rebels may take comfort in knowing that when our mission is done, nirvana awaits.

The Con Identity

In everyday life, if we overhear some con merchant trying to sell a pack of lies to the family next door, we would warn our neighbours and perhaps even threaten to report the con-man to the authority.

In politics, the tricksters may not be so easy to spot; some victims grow so attached to the false hope being peddled that they resent anyone trying to talk them out of it; and worst of all, if the con goes down without a hitch, the perpetrator becomes the authority.

But precisely because the stakes are so high, we must do everything we can to expose the con identity of politicians who pretend they want to look after our interests when all they are after is more wealth and power for them and their accomplices.

So how do we spot the political Con? Here are four unmistakable signs:

[1] The Pyramid Trick
Whatever the spiel, the deck is stacked to ensure that it is always going to be more pay, tax cuts, bonuses and dividends for the privileged few at the top of the towering wealth pyramid, while everyone else has to work harder everyday just to stay above rock bottom. Look out for the promise of a fast track ‘social mobility’ draw where if you are one of the very lucky, and decidedly very few, you may get to climb a couple of rungs nearer to the upper echelons. You will be routinely told that all the accumulated wealth will trickle down to you in time, when all you actually get is a relentlessly growing burden weighing you down.

[2] The Smoke & Halo Trick
Any notion that may have a positive connotation will be dazzlingly shuffled before you – ‘God’, ‘Country’, ‘The Flag/The Queen’ (depending if you’re in the US or the UK), ‘The Family’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Traditions’ – stirring up Pavlovian expectations of something deserving of your unquestioning reverence. And while your attention is distracted by the fancy shuffling, your pay packet shrinks, your children can’t afford the inflated house prices in your neighbourhood, the costs of necessities from energy to medicine skyrocket, and you are left with mass insecurity.

[3] The Isolation Trick
Every move is designed to isolate you. Any collective strength you may have from being part of something larger will be drained from you. Voluntary groups daring to campaign are starved of funds. Unions are bashed. And public sector provisions for ordinary people are cut back in every direction (though subsidies for corporations continue to grow). You are told that you’re better off keeping your money in your pocket even when it could buy you much more through a public scheme. The more things are privatised and deregulated, the more you are left on your own – easy pickings for tricksters with all the aces up their sleeves.

[4] The Scapegoats Trick
A simple sleight of hand and you see nothing of the manipulation that sucks out the gains from your increased productivity one day and leaves you redundant with a cut-up safety net the next. Instead your eyes are drawn to the supposed ‘cheats’ sitting next to you – the refugees, the immigrants, the low pay and jobless needing help to feed their children. You are goaded into resenting them, despising them, and channelling all your frustration towards them, while the double-dealer pockets everything in sight.

We hear much about the need to educate the public about the importance of democracy and the value of voting. One preliminary lesson for all citizens must surely be on how to spot these devious tricks and shun the politicians with the reprehensible ‘Con’ identity.

--
[If you’re interested in reading a story of how Con politicians trick their way to taking complete control over the lives of everyone in Britain and America, try the satirical dystopian novel, Whitehall through the Looking Glass]