Re Economic Violence and its alternatives. Pressenza IPA
http://www.pressenza.com/2012/09/myths-and-surprises-in-the-so-called-recession-towards-a-mixed-economy/
The Credit Rating Agencies, the OECD and the World Bank continue
to forecast – and perhaps also induce – worse to come in the World
Economy, prompting further austerity measures, cuts, privatisations and
rounds of QE (not Queen Elizabeth but Quantitative Easing: Printing
Money without printing it but electronically making it available to
banks). The EU demands that high unemployment stricken Greeks work a
longer week (!?) and rescue packages to banks disappear into the black
holes of Tax Havens. Climate Change forecasts disasters but the Chinese
are blamed for “dumping” cheap solar panels on Europe – and for
increasing their carbon footprint as we outsource them industrial
production, whilst expecting they should save the global economy. The –
many and varied – sane economic alternatives are dismissed outright. Not
everything is what it seems.
The culture of today’s global financial ethos is one of consumerism
(“I shop therefore I am”), mass production and economic growth followed
by periods of “recession” during which the most successful companies buy
out or force the weaker ones to close in a process of progressive
concentration never seen before in the history of humanity. Rapid
speculative profit rather than long term investment creates a sense of
uncertainty and instability where only having lots of money (never
enough, in fact) can protect a member of this system’s image of the
future. In this way only money, a meaningless convention, rather than
the creative process of production, acquires any weight in the scale of
society’s values. Human relationships are marked by relentlessly
stressing the advantages of individualism, competition and success.
Existential emptiness is filled by the progressive development of the
entertainment industry. The senses are caressed by visual images, music,
and the opportunity to live vicariously the life of heroes and
heroines, celebrities and victims of atrocities, princesses and
murderers, all from the comfort of our own living room, whilst the
values of the pervading system are absorbed uncritically.
But sometimes something does not make sense, and it makes us wonder:
“Woman plunges to her death from top restaurant that has become suicide
spot for City (London’s Financial District) workers.” How many? Three,
between 2007 and 2012; all successful members of the Financial Sector
workforce, with different stories but immediately bringing up memories
of stockbrokers’ mass suicides in the 1930’s crash. According to Macleans
there were 6 stock market related deaths in Wall Street during 2008.
Different sources put the 1930 death tall at around 23,000. It’s one of
the most deeply ingrained images of Wall Street during the crash: the
distraught stockbroker out on the window ledge. During the bank bailouts
in September, protesters outside the New York Stock Exchange carried
“Jump you f***ers” placards.
Interestingly enough the American Economist John Kenneth Galbraith
(1) reports in his book The Great Crash, that statistically the suicide
rate didn’t increase at all in New York during the months of the 1930
crash. Nor were there many actual cases of Wall Street types jumping.
Instead, the “suicide myth” grew out of the popular belief that broken
speculators are predisposed to self-destruction. “News coverage of
bankers jumping to their deaths was so intense that sidewalks began to
be seen as unsafe”, according to historian Charles Geisst’s Wall Street:
A History. “But for all the attention the deaths received, the
phenomenon was limited”. In fact, considering that at the time 12,000
workers were being laid off every day the suicide rate may well have
been increased by unemployment. (BBC)
Enter QE, inject money into the economy, save the banks, try to
control de inevitable inflation that will ensue and fail again to
kick-start the economy. The reason? The collective wealth of the
Britain’s’ 1,000 richest people rose by 30% in 2010 in the wake of the
economic crisis. In New Zealand the richest 150 increased their wealth
by 20%. Very simply, a system designed to concentrate wealth will
continue doing so unless the rules are changed. More importantly,
“growth” is not synonymous with “well being” and unless human markers
rather than monetary ones take centre stage we will not be able to
address the real suffering created by this system. Suicide is always
difficult to understand, more so if people are not listened to.
Aggression? Riots? Domestic violence? Racism? Substance abuse? Blame the
individual, nothing to do with society.
Crisis? What Crisis?
Big Money, Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Arms Trade, are all enjoying
record profits. But they are not the only ones navigating through the
crisis without too much trouble. In fact, it is not necessary to sell
your soul to the devil to remain economically viable. There are many
examples of companies and towns that sticking to high human centred
moral principles organise themselves for stability and growth.
Many people are surprised when told that John Lewis, the swish high
street department store and its subsidiaries, is owned by its workers; a
cooperative, or partnership, where the employees are the shareholders
as profits are distributed amongst all, as bonuses. It was of course
affected by the downturn but the reduction in bonuses (on average 18% of
the salary) was just of 3.5%, (for the first time in 3 years) with no
layoffs and the creation of 4.400 new jobs.
The Mondragon Corporation is a federation of worker cooperatives
based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in
1956, currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of
asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At
the end of 2011 it was providing employment for 83,869 people working in
256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and
Knowledge. Scholars such as Richard D. Wolff, American professor of
economics, have hailed the Mondragon set of enterprises, including the
good wages it provides for employees, the empowerment of ordinary
workers in decision making, and the measure of equality for female
workers, as a major success and have cited it as a working model of an
alternative to the capitalist mode of production. Whilst Spain’s
unemployment level is around 22 per cent, the Mondragon co-operatives
have shown impressive resilience that has enabled them to take their
share of economic hits and emerge largely unscathed.
Juan Manuel Sánchez Gordillo,
mayor of Marinaleda in Andalusia, Spain, has become famous for staging
robberies at supermarkets and giving stolen groceries to the poor.
During his 30 years as mayor he has introduced a cooperative farming
system in Marinaleda and has repeatedly tried to take over land for
farming, the latest target being 1,200 hectares of land owned by the
Ministry of Defence. Cooperativism and Commoning in action, in
Marinelada nobody goes hungry.
We have already published in Pressenza UN General Secretary Ban
Ki-Moon’s report/celebration of Cooperative Banks for their resilience
in the crisis.
Towards a Cooperatives-Only Monolithic System?
The Argentinean Economist Guillermo Sulling, in his essay “Mixed Economy: Beyond Capitalism”
points out the importance of establishing a verity of formats in the
context of participatory democracy, the State being a Coordinator rather
than an Administrator dissociated from social needs. Here are some
extracts from his work:
“A Mixed Economy System would resolve the root of inequality in the
distribution of wealth, through employee participation in profits,
ownership and management of companies… Implementing agricultural reforms
where rational and necessary and inheritance rights would limit the
excesses of economic power that have caused so much damage to humanity. A
Mixed Economy System would end the monopolistic control of strategic
resources and basic services… with commitment to human rights, among
them health care and free public education within set standards of
excellence…ending the irrational exploitation of environmental
resources…A Mixed Economy System, will not depend solely on markets
initiatives for productive investment and employment generation, but
active policies for development, guiding the private sector or
intervening to generate investment… A Mixed Economy System, would do
away with usury/speculation of private banking by creating a state zero
interest bank …as it is necessary to merge social interests and economic
interests in a new system where the state remains in control of
providing for the needs of the people and the direction of the economy,
while the people take over the operation and direction of the state.”
1. Amongst Galbraith’s famous phrases: “Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it’s just the opposite.” “The modern conservative is
engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is,
the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” He was a
Keynesian and his BBC series The Age of Uncertainty so
incensed the then leader of the British Conservative Party, Margaret
Thatcher the ultra-neoliberal Milton Friedman was brought over from
Chicago to lecture against Galbraith’s economic viewpoints.
Nobody is born nonviolent
World without Wars and without Violence aims to develop a worldwide commitment to nonviolence as a methodology of action, as a social system and as a lifestyle. Its objective is to achieve a world free of wars as well as physical, economic, racial, religious, sexual, psychological, ecological and moral violence. “Human beings are historical beings whose mode of social action changes their own nature” (Silo). This is the root of both our responsibility and our freedom. And it opens our future.
Nobody is born violent... Or nonviolent for that matter. So Gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world" is a great invitation to get rid of the rubbish this violent system has fed us and transform ourselves into the intentional beings that can create the world we all want. See the Active Nonviolence Training (ANVT) exercises. World without Wars and without Violence international site is on www.worldwithoutwars.org/
Nobody is born violent... Or nonviolent for that matter. So Gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world" is a great invitation to get rid of the rubbish this violent system has fed us and transform ourselves into the intentional beings that can create the world we all want. See the Active Nonviolence Training (ANVT) exercises. World without Wars and without Violence international site is on www.worldwithoutwars.org/
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Why Democracy needs Assanges
From Pressenza IPA: http://www.pressenza.com/2012/08/why-democracy-needs-assanges/
As Ecuador offers asylum to Julian Assange at its London Embassy with the Foreign Office doing Olympic-size legal somersaults to try to justify storming it, we hear that both the UK and the US have been helping the Syrian rebels, secretly, without any consultation with their parliaments, just to prove the point that we need Wikileaks to know what our governments are up to.
As for the US, although the Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to declare war, this has been regularly circumvented by various administrations with the help of not-too-keen-on-consulting-elected-bodies secret services, endlessly depicted by Hollywood as our saviours (disobeying orders, bending rules and NOT consulting Congress seems to be part of the job description).
Which brings us back to Julian Assange, beans-spiller extraordinaire, holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after being granted political asylum. He is not refusing, he claims, to answer to the (still to be formally brought) charges of sexual assault in Sweden, but attempting to avoid extradition from Sweden to the US where he would most likely be charged with espionage, or treason, and executed. Alternatively, another old favourite would be getting shot by a “crazy” who would then be shot by another person, so that Oliver Stone could make a film about unverifiable conspiracy theories.
Under international law, police are not allowed to enter the embassy without the express permission of the ambassador. This “rule of inviolability” was dictated by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and all nations observe it because their own diplomatic missions would be otherwise at risk. However, the Foreign Office has threatened Ecuador with revoking the embassy’s diplomatic status under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, passed to enter the Libyan embassy after a policewoman was shot dead outside, presumably from a window. This would certainly establish a dangerous precedent regarding diplomatic asylum all over the world. In recent days the FO seems to be backing down from this.
Needless to say that Rafael Correa’s Ecuadorian Government is being subjected in Britain to a smear campaign only comparable to the one he suffers in his own country at the hands of the traditional corporate media, where any attempt to limit its onslaught on the government (Honduras and Paraguay are examples of success in bringing down popular governments through relentless media campaigns) leads to accusations of curtailing the Freedom of the Press.
Democracy may rhyme with secrecy but they do not go well together, and the fuss surrounding the founder of Wikileaks speaks for itself. How can parliaments make decisions without information? How can the public vote without information, just the propaganda of political parties? Information is power and those who are attempting to democratise it are feeling the full weight of the system’s elites intent on keeping its monopoly.
As Ecuador offers asylum to Julian Assange at its London Embassy with the Foreign Office doing Olympic-size legal somersaults to try to justify storming it, we hear that both the UK and the US have been helping the Syrian rebels, secretly, without any consultation with their parliaments, just to prove the point that we need Wikileaks to know what our governments are up to.
According to Reuters “Barack Obama has signed a
secret order authorising US support for Syrian rebels seeking to
overthrow the Assad government… Obama’s order, approved earlier this
year and known as an intelligence finding broadly permits the CIA and
other US agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust
President Bashar al-Assad.” See Reuters
The Guardian
reports on an interview in Radio 4 to William Hague, Foreign Minister:
“Britain for its part had been offering support help in terms of
communication. “I do not ever comment on intelligence matters but I can
say that we are helping elements of the Syrian opposition, but in a
practical and non-lethal way,” he said. “We have helped them with
communications and matters of that kind, and we will help them more.”
Nobody other than completely self-deluded megalomaniacs (they are
still kicking about, I’m afraid) would try to pull again the Iraq WMD
trick on Parliament/Congress. The next best thing is to go ahead and
engage people and resources in a new war, without telling the public; a
public whose taxes pay for such engagement, a public that becomes the
target of “the enemy” faction without having any choice in the matter.
The UK Royal Prerogative allows the Prime Minister to declare war
without consulting Parliament, and surreally enough The Prime Minister
is voicing his desire to limit it, whilst using it give help to one side
of the Syrian civil war. He would argue, I imagine, that there is no
war declaration, but this is the new face of war, war by euphemism.
“Giving non-lethal help”, “just communications”, “training”, “stepping
us financial help” (surely the Syrian rebels will not buy sweets with
it!), etc.As for the US, although the Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to declare war, this has been regularly circumvented by various administrations with the help of not-too-keen-on-consulting-elected-bodies secret services, endlessly depicted by Hollywood as our saviours (disobeying orders, bending rules and NOT consulting Congress seems to be part of the job description).
Which brings us back to Julian Assange, beans-spiller extraordinaire, holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after being granted political asylum. He is not refusing, he claims, to answer to the (still to be formally brought) charges of sexual assault in Sweden, but attempting to avoid extradition from Sweden to the US where he would most likely be charged with espionage, or treason, and executed. Alternatively, another old favourite would be getting shot by a “crazy” who would then be shot by another person, so that Oliver Stone could make a film about unverifiable conspiracy theories.
Under international law, police are not allowed to enter the embassy without the express permission of the ambassador. This “rule of inviolability” was dictated by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and all nations observe it because their own diplomatic missions would be otherwise at risk. However, the Foreign Office has threatened Ecuador with revoking the embassy’s diplomatic status under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, passed to enter the Libyan embassy after a policewoman was shot dead outside, presumably from a window. This would certainly establish a dangerous precedent regarding diplomatic asylum all over the world. In recent days the FO seems to be backing down from this.
Needless to say that Rafael Correa’s Ecuadorian Government is being subjected in Britain to a smear campaign only comparable to the one he suffers in his own country at the hands of the traditional corporate media, where any attempt to limit its onslaught on the government (Honduras and Paraguay are examples of success in bringing down popular governments through relentless media campaigns) leads to accusations of curtailing the Freedom of the Press.
Democracy may rhyme with secrecy but they do not go well together, and the fuss surrounding the founder of Wikileaks speaks for itself. How can parliaments make decisions without information? How can the public vote without information, just the propaganda of political parties? Information is power and those who are attempting to democratise it are feeling the full weight of the system’s elites intent on keeping its monopoly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)