The Minorities Myth

One of my father’s favourite proverbs was “Enough ants can bring down an elephant”. He was keen to point out that unfavourable odds against even the biggest opponent could be turned by lining up more support. He wanted me never to give up as a lost cause what in fact was the just cause. In a way it is fitting that the mammoth animal has come to symbolize the Party of plutocratic righteousness in America, because more than ever we need to consider the fate of those modern day ants otherwise known as ‘minorities’.

Countless people who have to labour to make ends meet day in, day out, have for decades been parceled out into distinct minority packages. The poor who are despised for drawing on benefits which could otherwise boost the tax breaks of the rich. The workers whose share of their organisations’ earnings shrink as their bosses pay themselves ever larger bonuses. The non-white ethnic groups who are splintered into smaller and smaller sub-groups with their own ‘culturally unique’ problems. The women struggling to bring up children on their own. The young men whose inability to be responsible figures of their families leads them to drop out of society. The people whose disabilities prevent them from earning enough to support themselves. Their concerns are labeled as the interests of minorities, registered as fringe issues on the margins of society.

Whenever political representatives are to be elected, the two main contestants – whether they are competing for their parties’ nomination, or on behalf of their party for the vacant position in question – inevitably fight on the ‘mainstream’ issues, leaving the third candidate to reach out to the minorities, the poor, the unorganized, because those are territories destined to be covered by the losers in such campaigns.

If you want to win, you want to appeal to the majority underpinning the establishment – Middle England, Middle America – that substantial core which is meant to be where the hearts and minds of any given country is located. But strip away the rhetoric and what are these appeals really directed at? They are directed not at a majority at all, but at a tiny minority – the rich and powerful. These plutocrats amass power to themselves and will facilitate the elections – through campaign donations, strategic endorsements, media influence, etc. – of those keenest to strengthen their powerbase further, or at least unlikely to rock their hierarchical boat.

The truth is that the multiple ‘minorities’ disadvantaged by their lack of socio-economic power constitute the real majority. This perverse situation is increasingly taking hold across the world. Indeed according to the UN’s World Institute for Development Economics Research, a minority comprising merely 2% of adults in the world possess more than half of all household wealth, while the poorer half of the world's population own less than 1% of it.

We must not let the myth of minorities go on anymore. All ants – underpaid, undercut, discriminated against, marginalised, deprived, despised – should stand together and face up to the corporate elephants trampling on our hopes for a fairer society. Throw away those ‘minorities’ labels and embrace a deeper solidarity. Don’t let them stamp their feet and frighten everyone into running for cover. Show them that when the civic majority rally together to call for a more just distribution of power, they will have to listen. Whatever single-issue campaigns you want to fight, forget not the greater cause – it shall not be lost, for there’s definitely enough of us to make a difference.

Wheat from the Chav

Our collective consciousness has been struggling for awhile. Our ‘Right’ brain tells us it is essential to apply selection vigorously – keep separating out the worthy from the undeserving, those with potential from the hopeless – start the process from the earliest possible age, and carry on for the rest of their lives so we are continuously sifting out the just-not-good-enough from the most able. This way society rewards those who will make the greatest achievements. Meanwhile, our ‘Left’ brain is troubled by the presence of the disconnected – those who care little for social values, they think they get nothing out of society and certainly don’t want to put anything in. We wonder what has gone wrong.

A complete schizophrenic flip to the Right would suggest that those who drop out at the bottom of the relentless selection processes should not be left to act as they please. If they could not comply with the basic requirements of decent behaviour, they should be locked away in prison. On the other hand, an excessive surge from the Left could start a call for the abolition of all selections, leaving everyone to be treated in exactly the same way regardless of their attitudes or talents.

To regain our common sanity, we had better rethink how we got here. In many ways, it began with a neurosis about not allowing people to flourish enough. We had become obsessed that people were held back from fully unleashing their potential. If only they were told that the more they demonstrated how good they could be, the more they would be singled out for greater rewards, then we would see many more of them coming to the fore, improving life along the way for everyone.

But that was the critical point. What kind of potential unleashed would really improve life for everyone? Where do we most need improvements? Well, we need more nurses, teachers, carers, youth workers, we need them with more skills, more confidence to help all of us, young and old, to lead the most fulfilling lives we’re capable of. Yet these are the people who are now told that they must accept wage constraints, that however hard they are already working, they cannot be paid anywhere near as much as people who do far less than they to help their fellow citizens.

So who are the people who have been separated out for encouragement, praise, and ever-growing rewards? They are the ones who are blessed with the skills to navigate their way up the corporate ladder, come up with ideas to hook consumers into buying worthless, harmful or addictive goods and services which serve only to make their companies more money, and convince their board and the share market that they are the leaders to be trusted. They are the ones who are handed the tax break, the hundred-times-higher-than-their-employees salaries, multiple bonuses, and share options to smooth their rise to the top of the plutocracy.

Maybe we can begin to heal our cerebral disorientation by recognizing that selection and reward have their use only if we direct them to where we need more people to take up socially valuable vocations. Misdirecting them to promote the narrow class of business climbers and consumerist peddlers does little to help society, and breeds distrust and resentment amongst those brushed aside as unworthy. Worst of all, it concentrates power more and more in the hands of corporate chavs who have little connection with the rest of society apart from their determination to display their distinct and frankly unimpressive identity.

Where's our American vote?

Back in the 18th century, our cousins in America were extremely unhappy that one of Hanover’s Georges, sitting on the British throne, surrounded by his Ministers in Whitehall, was making insane decisions that affected numerous lives on the other side of the Atlantic. Yet they had no say. They could not vote in their own representatives for Parliament, and they could certainly not vote out the man whose every executive decision they despised. So they issued an ultimatum – give us representation or we would rid our land of your political control.

Now the table has been turned. One of Texas’ Georges is sitting in the Whitehouse, firing off one senseless decision after another, jeopardising the entire world. As President of the US, Bush has destablised the Middle East with a military campaign against non-existing weapons of mass destruction; opposed efforts by the rest of the world to tackle carbon emission; disrupted plans to prevent AIDS by putting religious dogma against the use of contraceptives above the saving of innocent lives; and fuelled an unsustainable credit expansion strategy with irresponsible tax cuts for the rich, and growing insolvency risk for everyone else.

Since the Americans founded their country on the principle that no political institution should be allowed to impact on the lives of those who could not democratically hold it to account, they ought to be sympathetic to the plight of those who now find the decisions of Washington all too often adversely affecting their lives. This applies not just to their British kin, but to virtually everyone around the world living in the shadow of the one global superpower.

All of us come under the de facto jurisdiction of America, and none of us without formal US citizenship can have any say about who in America gets to make the critical world-shaping decisions. Our wellbeing and patience are indeed daily taxed without any kind of representation offered in return.

Alas we are not in a position to issue a similar ultimatum. There is no prospect of us getting rid of the vast influence American Presidents and Congressmen will continue to have over the entire world. The only alternative is to press for proper representation. We should all be given a vote in all the American elections which have significant consequences for us.

US foreign policy has frequently led it to seek to limit the powers of the United Nations. It does not want to be subject to checks and balances from people who reside abroad even though their lives could be transformed – for better or worse – in so many ways by US policy decisions. Like the old Hanoverian George, delirious with power, it wants to do as it pleases without having to persuade or bargain with minor figures in a distant land.

But the spotlight should shift from the UN to the US. Never mind trying to get the UN to be more effective in helping to hold the US to account for its unilateral actions. Let us ask the most powerful nation on earth directly, make yourself democratically accountable to the rest of us. It's time to give us all a vote.

Let them eat bullets

Do you know how far the spiritual descendants of Marie Antoinette have developed the art of pacifying the poor?

Take a look at the richest nation on earth, where they also happen to have the widest gulf between the wealthy and the poor in the developed world. What do the powerful in America do when they see millions of their fellow citizens left far behind with no prospect of any improvement? They offer them a way out. Join the military. In one stroke, those who do not have any hope of getting a good education, a well-paid job, health care, or any of the things the privileged can take for granted, are given a highly attractive option.

And when in large numbers they take up that option, it means that the country can afford to give up on conscripting a citizens’ army. In the days of the Vietnam War, every American family (except for the super rich who can use their influence to ensure their sons stay well away from military action) stood an equal chance of bearing the responsibility of fighting their country’s war abroad, and they watched the development of the conflict with intense personal as well as civic interest. When a growing number felt that the risks and sacrifices demanded of them far outweighed the alleged gains to be made from the war, they vocally called for an end to America’s military role in Vietnam. When their own were killed day after day, the body politic spoke with one voice to call off the misadventure.

Now predominantly the poor make up America’s cannon fodder. They voluntarily sign up for a career their better-off fellow citizens gladly leave to them. They are patriotically saluted off to fight in a distant land. Should they be killed in action, no publicity is allowed when their bodies are returned to America. The civic minded do not want them to be forgotten, but those who only really care about their own families, and those who advocate violent actions against others so long as the repercussions are to be borne by less fortunate souls, barely register their loss.

So today the poor, instead of congregating outside the mansions and palaces of the upper class, shouting for bread and justice, wait quietly in line to join the establishment which has reserved for them a special place. Here, in return for support which progressive reformists of the last century tried to secure for everyone without prejudice, they, and they alone, would have to take their turn to face snipers and shrapnel, brain damage and death.

Imagine what Louis VI would have done in the face of the angry crowd calling for a fairer society, if he could simply point them to form an orderly queue over at the military registration office. With offers of decent pay, special discounts, scholarships, helpful mentors, loans, plus numerous other benefits, not to mention a wide selection of cakes, the revolution would never have even got started. Rather than threatening the powerful with militant confrontation, they would march off and get themselves killed instead. It’s a lesson the present day George II has learnt well.

The Alpha Male Syndrome

Natural selection has left animals with a wide variety of survival instincts. The alpha male tendency is common amongst predators that hunt in a pack as well as primates. But domination by an authoritarian male is not the only route to biological success. From the social cooperative nature of emperor penguins and dolphins to the individualist behaviour of foxes and squirrels, it is clear that one does not need to submit unreservedly to a snarling leader to make something of one’s life. Without the cerebral capacity to examine and compare, it is not surprising that once a species has developed a way of being, it sticks to it. Human beings, however, have no such excuse.

For thousands of years the alpha male instinct directed human interactions. In return for order, an allotted place in the group, and protection from ‘outside’ threat, one surrenders oneself to control by the most determined and aggressive in taking charge. This mindset is projected ‘upwards’ in the theological representation of ‘God’ as an absolute ruler who will punish dissent with eternal suffering, and ‘downwards’ in the social validation of oppression through the lower rungs of the hierarchy. The lord could treat his peasants as he pleased, the head servant could treat his subordinates likewise, and similarly with the priest and his underlings, the man with his wife and children.

It was only when the right conditions for related intellectual and political development converged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the movement towards a democratic as opposed to an authoritarian way of life began. It has been a long and hard struggle. And what remains the most challenging aspect of the struggle is to expose the grip the alpha male syndrome retains to this day.

Alpha male authoritarianism is not displaced just by opening the door to women, people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, or lower socio-economic classes, especially when those who take control are no less ‘alpha male’ in their power disposition.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have been fed stories that authoritarianism has been roundly defeated by democracy. But if that is the case, why is power at almost every level still concentrated in the hands of those most ruthless in securing and exercising power? Why are corporate barons able to sell arms, destroy the environment, or promote addictive consumerist behaviour when these are blatantly against the interests of the vast majority of people? Why are only those capable of destroying their enemies through the modern weapons of mass communication and subtle (or not so subtle) character assassination in line to compete for the most important political offices? Why can the wealthiest go on rewarding themselves more while subjecting their employees to pay restraints and perpetual job insecurity? Why is domestic violence still a blot on our moral landscape? Why are human beings, including young children, exploited as mere cogs in faceless production lines?

We need to ask ourselves who get to wield power in the world around us. Democracy has won many battles in the last few centuries, but it still has a long way to go. The alpha male psyche is deep in our evolutionary make-up. The aggressive few are inclined to push their way to the top. The silent majority are all too ready to acquiesce for fear of a backlash. But if authoritarianism is to be combated, we have to start unmasking the alpha male holders of power in every sphere of society. The legitimacy of power does not come from defeating their competitors, but only from engaging with us as equals in pursuit of our common good.

Variations on a theme of ransom

What do you do when an entire city’s transport system is totally disrupted because there is another all-out strike? You stress, you curse, and you wish someone would end this nonsense.

Then you hear about others, baggage handlers at airports, even prison officers, going on strike, causing so many problems for other people. And you think it’s the unions. You don’t see those without a strong unionized workforce going on strike. They just get on with it. Whereas those backed by the power of their unions are quite ready to hold the rest of society to ransom. Meet our demands, they declare, or else there will be unpleasant consequences for you all.

So when the leaders of society stand firm and pronounce such actions irresponsible, if not outright contemptible, people look up and welcome their intervention. At last someone to protect us from those who use their power to secure what they want at our expense. It is outrageous that some people can keep playing the “or else” card to force us to comply with their preferred scheme of things.

But what protection are we getting? Let us take a closer look. When those who are in fact the most economically powerful proclaim that in their scheme of things, they must have an utterly disproportionate share of what they in conjunction with numerous others produce, what happens? Do we hear resounding condemnation of these corporate barons? Do we hear revulsion that they are getting away with establishing a society where they can pay themselves millions, and further year on year increases of 10%, 20%, 30% and more above the rate of inflation, when many ordinary workers find that their pay does not even keep pace with inflation, their jobs are constantly under threat as management might sacrifice them to boost share prices, and whose pension terms are deteriorating when their bosses are getting extra benefits in every conceivable way?

What we do hear is this: “we must accept this, because …” wait for it, “or else”, yes, that’s the crunch point, “or else, they would leave and take their skills elsewhere, and we would all lose out”. In other words, out of fear that these corporate barons would do a walk-out – which of course is precisely what they threaten to do every time someone questions the absurd benefits they award themselves – nobody dares to challenge them.

This is mistaken on two counts. First, it is a myth that people, even the most greed-soaked ones, are only motivated by getting hugely more money all the time to do what they love doing anyway. Look at the top footballers’ contracts. None of them seriously thinks that they could not be bothered to fight hard to win a competition because they are not paid another million pounds on top of the X millions they are getting already. But it does become a problem if a few super elite are getting another million, then they want it too. What’s the driver here? A need to minimize differentials – not to maximize.

Secondly, when the powerful at the top are left unchallenged, vulnerable individuals have no choice but to band together to protect themselves. Unions are to workers as Robin Hood and his followers are to the exploited folks of old Nottingham. And there is a crucial difference between the Sheriff of Nottingham holding wretched peasants to ransom lest they allowed him to grab his grossly unfair share of what the people had produced, and Robin Hood holding the good Sheriff to ransom lest he agreed to let them live a decent life. It can be summed up in one word. Justice.

The Crisis of Civic Disengagement

So what if people are less inclined to band together to shape the decisions that affect them? Fewer and fewer people join political parties or trade unions, organise themselves in deliberating and questioning public policies, vote or stand for public office. Some embrace this phenomenon as a minor side effect of the spread of consumerism. But for those of us who have not forgotten how throughout history the powerful few get away with exploiting the many when the latter give up on collective action, it is a serious crisis indeed.

The Roman Republic and the early days of America witnessed citizens who were similar in status, working to achieve comparable rewards for their families, and were thus willing to take action through their public institutions on terms of mutual respect. But when those with the military strength and corporate muscle started to amass power in themselves at the expense of others, republican virtues gave way to irresponsibility, inequalities, and imperialist hubris. Powerful elites know that by fragmenting the public into strangers separated by widening gaps of wealth and social standing – from those too rich to have to worry about being accountable to anyone else, to those pushed so far down the hierarchy that they feel they have nothing to lose however self-destructively they behave – they can dissolve the citizenry into a multitude of disconnected individuals.

For too long, society’s readiness to allow those at the top to secure better and better terms for themselves while making lives for those at the bottom more precarious and insignificant, has left those lower down the towering pyramid with dwindling self-worth and deepening alienation. Not surprisingly, rights for workers to seek better treatment are now branded costly red tape to be cut, while rights for employers to exploit the weak bargaining position of others are celebrated as essential freedom to be enhanced.

The problem of civic disengagement we have today is not going to be solved by encouraging a few young people to volunteer to help run the odd charitable projects, or enticing a few more rich philanthropists to donate to good causes. It is a manifestation of the onslaught on civic cohesion at the heart of the rise of global plutocracy. We need to stir our democratic conscience and challenge the hegemony of the so-called ‘wealth creators’ – the corporate elites who between them dominate the private media, the lobbying of lawmakers, the consumerist industries, the arms and surveillance business, and much else besides. To adapt Niemöller’s observations, doing nothing is not a sustainable option:

First they came to strip the trade unions of their power,
One did nothing,
One was not a trade unionist.

Next they came to halt state bodies from interfering with their ‘wealth creation’,
One did nothing,
One was not a member of a state body.

Then they came to undermine the authority of public broadcasters,
One did nothing,
One was not a public broadcaster.

Finally they will come for the rest of us,
If one still has not done anything by then,
It would all be too late.