Just Not Good Enough

See below! Have updated.

My thoughts are still occupied with “inequality”and I’m wanting to get more written. Hard to pull a solid, edifying piece of writing together though, because the more I read and think about it, the harder it seems to be to get it all into a few words for a blog. My latest reading is a book by Tariq Ali, “The Obama Syndrome”. I noted that Ali makes the same points about the rich co-opting politics as John Lanchester does  in his book “Whoops”. Ali talks about the “dictatorship of capital”, and makes the point that any pretence that this isn’t the case “disappeared after the collapse of the old communist enemy.

I want to come back to the aspect of inequality I was originally thinking about – why those badly affected by the increasing inequality don’t make more noise about it – revolution! – as I was saying in previous blog entry, somewhat tongue in cheek. Following are what I believe are some possible reasons. Effective protest needs organised numbers of people, so first off you need an organiser. And what’s happened to one of the most effective organising instruments we’ve seen in the last say 100-odd years? The unions?  Detroyed, decimated or at least depotentiated by western governments of all ilks over the last 30 years or so. Right-wing governments led the way, but the more left-leaning never did anything effective in re-empowering unions. We all know that the more left-leaning governments have leaned quite a lot the other way in the last thirty years.

But the Occupy Wall Street movement inspires hope. How heartening this was.  Happened here in several NZ cities and around the world. Great! Don’t know what’s happening with this group currently, must check them out.

Revolutions arise from contexts of extreme social injustice and poverty, such as existed in Russia at the beginning of the 20^th century, or in Central America in the same and later periods. We don’t have these extremes in the west – yet. In the case of the Occupy movement, a motivating factor for protest is the sheer greed, criminality and other chicanery that’s occurred that absolutely pissed off the “little person”  everywhere.

The New Scientist used a phrase “relative poverty” to describe a contemporary phenomenon:  groups of people at such a reduced level of income that they are not able to fully participate in their society.  There are probably not enough numbers at this level, to be effective in creating protest, and also, how would anyone in these circumstances have the energy to be active in such ways. Not only lacking the facilities that most of us take for granted – car, landline phone, Internet access, other electronic fripperies, ability to pay doctor’s bills and the power bill, they will also be eating cheap, nutrient-poor foods, and living in basic, often sub-standard housing.

How about those slightly higher in the heap? Those groups of people whose slightly better incomes and slightly more comfortable lives are usually the result of two or more adults in the household working? It’s still a tiring struggle for those at this level to provide the basics and just a little more. Why haven’t they made a bit more noise about the inequalities and the systems and people that created them? I can think of several reasons, one of which is the aforementioned – needing the time and energy to do so. But also, there’s the unknown and obscure nature of the systems and processes that help the rich (in cahoots with politicians and governments) get richer and get more of everything. You have to have energy, time and commitment to delve into information sources, and to know where to look in the first place. Then, they’re complex and difficult to understand in many cases. I’m finding it hard going reading John Lanchester’s book. He tries to make the information accessible, but the financial and banking systems themselves are arcane and mysterious places to a layperson, full of specialised language, and, as Lanchester is just saying in the bit I’ve got up to, a sort of specialised mathematics of financial risk. And then you’d have to meet with others and discuss these ideas, and …… yep, organise! Hopefully there’s a groundswell of protest now, which will continue to gain momentum, with the core Occupy people keeping us informed.

But will the “consumption factor” inhibit widespread protest about inequality?  Excluding those at the lowest level of economic disadvantage, the rest of us are able to be consumers, and consuming keeps us happy. Even those in lower-socioeconomic strata are able to consume because of the plethora of very affordable cheap goods that flood our markets daily – and the freely available credit if you don’t have the cash this month. Planning to get things, buying things, and having things is seductive – for about 5 minutes. The “hit” wears off, but no problem, there’ll be something else to buy to ease any vague feelings of discontent we may occasionally feel stirring. Shopping is a major contemporary recreational past-time in western society. If one was inclined to be a little paranoid, one might propose that the production and availability of cheap goods, including cheap fast foods,  is part of a conspiracy of the rich elite. At one end, ensure your influence with governments, at the other, provide this vast market of things by which you “enable” the addiction of the populace. Supplying the addiction means you numb out the people and ensure their lack of focus on the bigger picture.

It’s definitely hopeful that the Occupy movement got such attention in the media and a widespread following at that level and “on the ground”.  Many people did stop consuming long enough to pay attention and in some cases, do something. Sometimes when I’ve felt everything in the human world is really shitty I remember that we’re living in the age of Kali Yuga – destruction!  Is it all written in the cosmos? Good to know that many people around the world are still protesting for justice and against the venality and sanitised criminality of those who’ve thought they could get away with it for too long. They inspire me to sign up for the Occupy newsletter, and not to give in to the despair that the Kali Yuga vibe sometimes induces in me.

I have some more thoughts about “them and us” – that will be the next blog.

Is it the flavour of the month or an inevitable trend? More about inequality in the media – in this week’s edition of NZ Listener  (August 18). See the article about growing inequality in the US by Timothy Noah, whose book on the subject has been published recently. He notes that the Occupy Wall Street movement has arisen over growing discontent with economic inequality. Not that that’s a searing analysis, but he presents an interesting perspective about the causes of growing economic inquality. In the same Listener issue, economist Brian Easton writes along the same theme  “The rich get richer”. If this is a trend can the revolution be far away?

Enough about coffee, more serious matters now engage me! Was listening to a conversation at my hairdresser’s –  the theme had moved to the state of British society these days. Heard about a man on the Underground who tasered a guy trying to rob him! My (British) hairdresser said that sort of thing was why they moved to NZ – not only only the robbery and assaults scenario, but that it’s become a society where people feel the need to, and do, carry weapons for self-defence.  I had images from Bladerunner in my head – we are now in the dystopian future! Doesn’t matter that the UK is thousands of kilometres away – we’re such a small global community really, that we have to be concerned, and there’s plenty else in NZ to concern us anyway.  Is the global Dystopia inevitable? I think we’re well on the way, and there’s much that contributes. This ties in to other stuff I’ve been thinking about – religion, increasing inequality, greed, great wealth, social justice and injustice. (In a Dystopia “social justice” would be an foreign concept).

Since I burst into online print recently about matters Christian (NZ Herald, Opinion, July sometime), I’ve been thinking more about Christianity, and religion generally. I’m not religious, and feel concerned about the numbers of people who still buy into the supernatural aspects of the Christian story (and other religions). But I did get to wondering if  concern for the welfare of others, which has been an element of human life in various forms over many centuries, exists because religions taught us to care.   Unsure whether or not religions other than Christianity do  teach social justice, I Googled Judaism and Islam, and, from a cursory glance, Wiki told me that they do. Would we have concern for our fellows and try to assist the less-fortunate even if religions never existed?  In my own values system is included the concept that societies should take care of their members in need. And beyond that:  free health-care and education for all; decent pay for all work; accessible, decent low-cost housing, as well as reasonably-priced basic amenities such as food, power, water. I may not be religious, but I have grown up in a society permeated by Christian thinking and practice.  I don’t really have a take on whether or not the concept and practice of social justice would have arisen in human societies if religions had never existed. There are probably scholars who have looked into this, and I’d like to know the conclusions they may have reached.

But in this time of increasing inequality of wealth it seems that social justice – all those things listed above, and more – is a diminishing thing, at least in the societies of the western world. Is this related to the diminishing influence of Christianity? I’d like to think not.  However they originated, there does exist a scale of values held by non-religious as well as religious citizens, including care and concern for your fellows. But what has happened to the practice of these social justice values across societies, as reflected in the laws and practices of governments?  It’s obvious that “social justice” has become far less valued in recent years by those in power, and the wealthy (who include the aforementioned, of course).

An article enitiled “The Age of Inequality” in the 28 July edition of New Scientist magazine, includes the following observations about the rich living different lives from the rest of us – different neighbourhoods, schools etc. When they “pay directly for necessary services in their lives, they become less willing to spend tax money on everyone else, which begins to erode public services and creates a hierarchy of quality”……  “a service for the poor is a poor service”.  (p45)  As another writer, John Lanchester notes in his book “Whoops!”  “The rich are always listened to more than the poor” (p13). Lanchester provides a very interesting discourse about why and how the rich grew (obscenely) richer in the last couple or three decades, and why at the same time such concepts as “equality” and “fairness” started losing ground.

To round off, I return to my starting place – dystopia now? Values, equality/inequality, wealth, greed etc? It’s all connected, I believe.  I spotted a book called something like “Why Equality is Better for All of Us”. Decided not to buy it, bogged down with other reading at the mo, but I bet it’s thesis goes something along the lines of …… “access to life’s necessities, plus a little extra, keeps everybody happy, you get less crime, fewer problems, etc etc.”  In other words, nobody foments revolution -“Eat the rich!”- when they’re basically doing okay.

That leads me to thinking about why we aren’t having a revolution about all the increasing inequality and it’s dire outcomes for large sections of societies. I have lots of thoughts about it – but they’re for another day, another blog.

Welcome to Blogtown NZ. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!