Offence: the only form of defence

Anyone else noticed how the word “defence” when linked with words like “policy”, “ministry”, “government” and “industry” appears to mean something completely different? You and I would assume that “defence” referred to what we did if we came under attack from someone, so it’s funny that so much of what the defence industry produces and the government spends on defence seems to be concentrated on offensive weaponry.

And it’s strange that so much of defence spending by the UK and US is swallowed up by offensive operations and invasions. UK government ministers have previously suggested that the military operations in Afghanistan are intended to defend the UK mainland from terrorist attacks. Forgive me for my naivety, but I always thought the only way to defend yourself from terrorist attack was to stop terrorists from blowing up things on your home soil.

If a government was serious about defence, it would spend money on soldiers, the navy and airforce to protect its territory rather than engaging in military adventures on foreign soil. It should come as no surprise that regimes such as those in Iran are actively seeking to develop nuclear weaponry capability given that the UK and US governments have placed such a heavy emphasis on the “defensive” aspects of their own nuclear missile systems. You can’t blame countries like Iran for believing that having nuclear weaponry acts as a “deterrent” to attack from enemies when that’s exactly what the US and UK have said for the past 60 years.

“Increased Competitiveness”: a blessing and a curse

How come when business people and those in the government talk about the need for “increased competitiveness” they invariably mean more money for those at the top of the pile and lower wages for the people at the bottom? So, in order to keep the top people in an era of increasing competition, we need to reward them with more money and lower taxes while to maintain competitiveness and slash costs, we need to cut the wages of workers. Doesn’t seem like a viable system to me, more like a vast con job visited on the majority by a very small minority.

A modest proposal for electoral reform

It seems to me that the current electoral system, whether it be in the UK, US, Ireland, Germany, France or Spain, has become outmoded and outdated. It should be obvious to all and sundry that governments incline disproportionately towards certain groups in society at the expense of others. Those groups tend to have a greater sway over the politicians than others. In most modern democracies, those groups are pretty much the same. For the most part, they consist of the wealthy, business lobbying groups, the financial sector and the military-industrial complex. I hope I am not being too presumptious when I suggest it might be fairer on us all if the governments of our modern democracies introduced a voting system which more accurately reflected this state of affairs. In a modern capitalist society, we can all see the value of “shareholder democracy” where those who hold the most shares are, quite rightly if one believes in capitalism, given a greater say and influence over the decisions affecting a business.

I propose that we merely extend this principle to the electoral system. Business leaders should be entitled to more votes than, say, a dustbin collector or street sweeper and CEOs of financial powerhouses should have even more, irrespective of whether they actually live here or not, given the power they have over our politicians. The main reason I think this would be worthwhile pursuing is that it would enable all of us to more accurately gauge the power certain people have over the political process compared to others. It would make things more transparent to us all. As a result, we could also do away with the messy and grubby world of behind the scenes lobbying because politicians would, under my proposal, be far more open about who they were talking to and the decisions they were making on their behalf if it was glaringly apparent to all of us that the individuals they were talking to represented, say, the equivalent of 50,000 votes from nurses or teachers.

There are some, I’m sure, who would be inclined to dismiss my proposal because of the upheaval it could cause. In addition to the process involved in calculating the voting values of particular individuals and their positions, we would also have to introduce a very clear, consistent and transparent system for those who might find themselves moving up and down the voting value table. And I agree there would be some work involved in putting this system in place. You could also argue this is a waste of time because it’s the way the system works already.

But think of the value to everyone of finally having an open, transparent political process which so demonstrably succeeded in showing people the true value of their vote. Isn’t that a price worth paying?

The Anger Of The Powerless

One thing no one can have failed to notice during the current economic crisis is how angry people have become. Another thing I’ve noticed is how unfocused that anger is. One day, it’s the bankers to blame. The next day, we’re angry at the politicians. The day after, we’re shouting about workers in the public sector having it easy. There’s a lot of rage out there but very little direction behind it.

What does this mean? I think it suggests we’ve become so infantilised by modern capitalism that our only response is, like most toddlers, to scream and shout when we feel powerless and boy do we feel powerless. But also like toddlers, we are easily distracted. Why is this? Because we have no obvious frames of reference of our own by which to judge what is going on and to decide what’s the best to do about it. As a result, governments are making huge decisions on our behalf which offer little, if any, positive outcomes for the majority of people they supposedly represent.

We’re being told these things are good for us because they are good for the banking sector and governments are doing their best not to explain any further or to present us with any possible alternatives. This is partly because they can’t bear to contemplate them either but also because they don’t want us to dare to choose something different.

Without any options or choices except those presented to us by governments and their friends in the banks, it’s no wonder we’re reduced to a state of impotent rage and so many of us lash out at anyone and everyone. This is what it means to be powerless and not in control of your life or destiny, just as it is for a toddler. Shout all you like but nothing will change.

As Michael Jackson said, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white

Okay, so here’s a very simple question: Why does everyone refer to President Obama as America’s first black president? Do they think he’s black? I can understand why they call him African American because he most assuredly is, his mother was American and his father was African. That’s incontrovertible. But black?

His father was a black man but his mother was a white woman – by that measure if you’re going to call him a black man by virtue of having a black father, you could just as easily call him a white man because his mother was white.

So if we’re looking to take away positives and counter attempts by those who seek to sow division by insinuating Obama’s heritage is somehow less worthy than say Ronald Reagan’s or George W Bush’s or Richard Nixon’s (all very white Republican gentlemen), we could say that what may well make Barack great is not that he’s a black president, but that he’s a black and white president. And the very first one at that.

Why is “idealist” a term of abuse?

When I was younger I became accustomed to being dismissed as an “idealist” for some times daring to suggest that people could try and build a fairer system to live in. God knows how many times I found my arguments countered with the retort that I wasn’t “living in the real world”. The corruption of socialism and communism when both systems were adopted in different parts of the world in the last century provided a perfect riposte to anyone who dared to suggest either provided a path to a potentially better world than the capitalist orthodoxy which had governed the affairs and commerce of people since the 1700s.

Of course, in many instances, the so-called communist and socialist societies were nothing of the kind. Be that as it may, if there is one thing I have never been able to accuse anyone on the capitalist side of the argument of being it is an idealist, purely because there are no ideals, that I can see, in capitalism. What is an ideal capitalist society? I don’t know. I begin to wonder if there is such a thing.

How can you have an ideal society based on the premise that people will act from purely selfish motives in pursuit of material reward? How can a society that entrenches the division between wealth and poverty be ideal? People say capitalism works because it is based on human nature, but what does that say about human nature? And is it really so wrong to try and change how people think and react?

For something which is portrayed as such a dynamic economic force, capitalism is a remarkably passive phenomenon. The market sets the rates and the rules and humans bow down in obeisance to it. The market decides whether something is viable or not – it is not up to us to decide what can and cannot be done or how the world can be made a better place. Really? How exactly does the market make these decisions? What are its ideals? Don’t know? Join the club.

So if you want to know why idealist is a term of abuse for so many believers in capitalism and the free market the answer is really quite simple: it’s something they can never be accused of themselves.

And the winners in the recession are…

Ordinary people may be losing their jobs, pensions and houses, but there are two groups who are seeing a big rise in the current economic climate: investment bankers who stand to share record bonuses this year of as much as £6bn…and criminals. Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised given that both groups are united in their inability to relate to the plight of normal people and enjoy a blind sense of entitlement to their own ill-gotten gains.

As surely as night follows day (or day follows night, depending on where you’re standing), crime increases as employment decreases. In a country like Ireland, which has introduced a recruitment freeze on the police force, we are faced with the idiotic situation of experiencing a reduction in police numbers as crime surges.

I sincerely hope the government’s plans for dealing with the huge debts in our banks through NAMA are better thought out, but I have my doubts. And I wonder if the UK’s announcement of an extra £30bn investment of tax payers’ money into Lloyds and RSB will be any better. Still, anything to avoid a proper nationalisation where the people have a say over the investment of their money into failed banks. Much better to nationalise the debt and leave the banks free to carry on regardless.

What do you own?

Looking back on the golden age of consumerism, it’s not hard to see why so many people were so easily suckered. The gray spectre of communism which had overshadowed the world for the second half of the century had been vanquished, socialism was on the wane and global capitalism was on the march.

Suddenly, ordinary people were able to buy houses, cars, TVs, stereos, computers, furnishings, pretty much anything they wanted. And they didn’t have to wait until they’d saved up to do the buying because whatever they wanted, they could walk into a shop and get today. They didn’t need money because everyone was willing to give them credit to buy all the things they saw advertised on TV and in the newspapers. Nearly anyone could walk into a car showroom, sign some papers and drive away with a brand new car.

Not surprisingly, everybody laboured under the delusion that they owned lots and lots of stuff but then the credit crunch came, the banks turned off the credit taps and it became all too apparent that the only thing people owned was debt. Lots and lots of it.

All of those things which consumerism had taught us were visible confirmation of wealth and prosperity suddenly became a way to measure our level of indebtedness. Property developers went overnight from owning banks of land worth millions or billions to people saddled with barren plots of wasteland worth a tenth of their value. Ordinary people who had been encouraged to turn the dream of owning their own home into investing in the property market saw their primary “asset” plunge in value and turn, overnight, into a liability.

We were fooled into helping to fuel and grow the ‘boom’ of the first part of the 21st century with rising levels of debt. Here we are in 2009, not so proud owners of massive amounts of personal debt. But if you thought things couldn’t get any worse, ask yourself this: Given those record levels of personal debt, how come the people have been hit with the sucker punch of taking on the banks’ debts as well?

A World Without Vision

Why are the two great utopian creeds of religion and socialism in retreat in the western world? Is it because they offer visions of utopia at a time when capitalism rules because it reflects the short-term, fragmented consciousness of an age where distraction and entertainment are used to divert people away from any deeper thought on the bigger issues that might result in a more equal society and world?

 

Could it be that the more capitalist the society, the greater disconnection from long term conviction, belief and faith in the ability to effect significant change? Does capitalism lead to a feeling of powerlessness against the onslaught of consumerism and diversion where marketing, advertising and PR pave the way for another short term craze, obsession or must-have?

 

If you want to see what capitalism has done to the western world look at all the parents anxiously scouring the shops and the internet in the run-up to this Christmas for the year’s have-to-get toy. The message of Christmas is consumerism on an epic scale, as over-the-top as the lunch most people sit down to eat on the day itself and, ultimately, as disappointing. The toys that cause such joy on Christmas morning are often discarded and abandoned within days or weeks, some times they don’t even merit a second glance after the wrapping paper is ripped away. It’s a sad reflection of the times we live in that the most important day in the Christian calendar has been transformed into Consumerfest.

 

Is it any wonder so many of us feel a gnawing emptiness in our lives when we live in a world where disappointment is such an integral part of the package? Desire and anticipation fire through our veins as we hunger for ownership of an item, be it the latest electronic gadget, pair of shoes, CD, DVD, iPhone, but so often, like our children, we begin to feel a tiny trickle of dissatisfaction even as we take them out of their boxes or wrappers.

 

No wonder we seek to counter these feelings of dissatisfaction over the value of our purchases by seeking validation of their desirability and approbation from our friends and colleagues. But isn’t that what everybody does in the adverts?

 

Is consumerism also what drives people in the western world who have given up on the arduous requirements of adhering to traditional Christian religions to seek out alternative faiths which place far less burdens on their devotees – be it the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, his purple clothes and tolerance of sexual freedom in the 70s to Madonna’s embrace of Kabbalah – and to drop them almost as quickly once they have ceased to be this year’s ‘must-have’ spiritual accessory?

 

And is it really any wonder politics too has become so meaningless and powerless in a world ruled by consumerism and short-term gratification? How effective can any politician be when he or she must contend with a populace unwilling or unable to recognise that nothing happens overnight, to understand grand plans and visions are subject to set-backs and disappointments before they can reach any type of realisation?

 

How can anything significant and lasting be achieved when most people in the western world have been conditioned through rampant consumerism to have such a short attention span? Take a look at the current attempt to address climate change. Is it really possible to get people to recognise the scale of the problem and commit to the huge structural changes required to halt it?

 

Can a generation reared on consumerism really grasp the magnitude of such a challenge when they have spent all their lives being sold the promise of quick and painless solutions to every problem they have ever faced? Furthermore, do politicians have the will to push through the required changes when they rely for their re-election on those very same people – when they actually may be those very same people themselves?

 

Could it be that without the countervailing forces of religion and socialism to balance consumerism and emphasise sacrifice in the here and now for the greater good, capitalism will prove itself unable to effect any genuine transformation in human behaviour that will stem the tide? The truth is life is a struggle and great things cannot be achieved overnight, even if there are miracles along the way. But without a vision to inspire that involves all of us and recognises the rights of everyone to an equal measure of the wealth and beauty of this planet, we may have no hope of reversing the climate of atrophy and passivity which consumerism has delivered.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

It’s getting very tiring listening to politicians continually upbraiding the bankers and telling them to modify their behaviour when it comes to awarding themselves huge bonuses because there has been a change in the public mood. Seems like there isn’t a day goes by without someone telling them they need to be more sensitive to the public mood, or that they need to be grateful and somehow humble because without the support of billions of pounds/dollars of taxpayers money they wouldn’t be making the profits they are today.

Lord Myners, who happens to be one of the most vocal when it comes to talking about bankers’ pay, was at it again last night, warning bankers that taxpayers would not tolerate huge bonuses.

“Contemplation of big bonuses in these conditions is nothing short of a market failure,” he said.

He didn’t want to bash banks but thought they ought to take heed of the prevailing public mood and reform the bonus system themselves. There was a vague warning that the government might take action if they didn’t do anything, but I doubt many bankers will take any notice. Over the past 12 months or so, the US and UK governments have done SFA to provide a corrective to the reckless behaviour of the banks and their mad bonus systems, so you can understand why the bankers are hardly quaking in their boots at the prospect of any legislative measures in the future.

The maddening thing is that politicians are in a position to do something about it if they wanted because the will is there. At least it is from the voting public. Sadly, our political representatives are too much in thrall to the city and big finance to act on our behalf. It seems that the justified anger of millions and millions of ordinary people counts for nothing against a few voices in the boardrooms of the world’s largest banks.