Ripped-off Britons: Graphs at a glance: ONS, Eurostat and World Bank f...

Ripped-off Britons: Graphs at a glance: ONS, Eurostat and World Bank f...: "the love of money is the root of all evil" 1 Timothy 6:10 This biblical quote means people aren't bad for nothing: to ...

Do We Have to Reject Reality?

I've recently been reading some interesting blogs and books regarding socio-economic trends and possible futures. What strikes me, at this moment in time, is the feeling of rising tension among people blogging, and commenting on blogs, across the Western world.

Big calls for Rothschild's blood can be heard right across America! He, apparently, "owns" most of the world's currencies. Meaning that despite us all relying heavily on local credit for houses, cars, shopping, and the like, nations are 'in hock' for their own currencies! Society as a whole is stuck in debt-slavery! Neoliberal capitalism relies on social inequality to operate. There has to be an unemployed group to keep the employed in check. But how far must this inequality go? Well, looking at some of the worst Third World examples, death through destitution and starvation seem to be the markers! Could it really happen here? Check out some of the stories doing the Facebook rounds!

Reading through the blogs and comments on the web, my first shock is the building tension in the USA (of all places) over the rise in corporate wealth and power. Weren't they expecting it then? I was always led to believe that the average American was inculcated in the belief that more was good. Ergo, their global corporate beasts were great. Have they suddenly come to realise that corporate behemoths will take food out of the mouths of babies and children to feed themselves? That nationality means nothing? That flags, constitutions and democracy are meaningless? Wasn't that supposed to be a "good thing" that America "ruled the world"? 

My fear is that most of these very angry people are heading in the most dangerous direction. They seem to be baying for blood! Revolution is in the air and that's never a good thing if not properly coordinated and planned. The problem of "exit strategy" needs to be addressed. The "End Goal" needs to be formerly devised, agreed and ratified. Revolution run purely on adrenaline would only lead to unnecessary death and carnage and lead us back into a state of confusion from which would emerge yet another "strong leader"! Yet another psychopathic despot to "bring order"! Karl Marx and Rosa Luxembourg argued that there could not be a successful revolution without a politically aware proleteriat. We need to gather, organise, plan and execute! We can't just "kick ass"!

The problem of counter-revolution needs to be addressed. No revolution, however well intended, has managed to stem the counter-revolutionary. The individual, or group, that enjoins the revolutionary group to secure their own less-than-honourable ends. Stalin was just such a counter-revolutionary. His 'interpretation' of Marx was to kill anyone who disagreed with the Bolsheviks, and anything he decreed! Mao Tse Dung was just a power-hungry "emperor-in-waiting", as far as I could tell. To overthrow a despotic, imperial class and to ensconce himself in the same role as that of the recently deposed emperor hardly represents "mature communism".  

I have come to the conclusion that capitalists are all psychopathic. The genuine realities of unchecked capitalism are the total destruction of our peoples and our planet. I'm not too sure which will come soonest, but the inevitable outcome can only be total anihilation of human life on Earth. Governed by one or two huge corporations and a tiny number of rich elites, our planet will be stripped bare of anything they deem holds any "value". The people who work the land will be starved in favour of the rich, or disease-ridden, or crushed by unnecessary wars waged using automated killing machines and global destruction due to depleted resources. All pretty psychopathic outcomes, I feel. Plus, there really doesn't seem to be any reasoning with them! Profit is god. 

A question was posed by my sociology lecturer: "We've apparently reached the 'third stage'. What do you think might be the 'fourth'?" I wonder..........

"Collective Conscoiuness"?

I keep hearing the term "collective consciouness" banded about on various sites and in comment-boxes, and have begun to give some thought to it.

In my training, I was introduced to the term "collective unconscious" in relation to Carl Jung and his ideas. But "collective conscious" is a relatively new twist on the concept.

What does it mean? I ask myself. We live in a world of such diversity of opinion, ideology, philosophy, culture, political persuation, ability, academic achievement, religion, wealth, and other demographic measures that I can't think of right now! What's "collective" about that?

There is an assumption that, at some very basic level, we're all the same! - Are we?

A meme, (that's what they call a picture with some 'profound' written soundbite on it!), on my Facebook 'newsfeed' shows a picture of the Earth coloured green and states: "The world we are experiencing today is the result of our collective consciousness, and if we want a new world, each of us must start taking responsibility for helping create it." And the quote is attributed to a Rosemary Fillmore.

What I find wrong with that quote is the assumption that the whole world falls under the banner of the (presumably) American metaphysical view of the world. I find that a strange concept. Christian fundamentalism is American - that we all know. It seems to have been born out of the early, puritan, settlers who 'conquered' the aboriginal peoples to claim the country for themselves and their offspring. There is also the question of how they conquered a (mostly) peaceful group of tribes of what became known as "indians". Using, not just sheer brutality, (guns and explosives verses bows and arrows), but dirty tricks as well. Early use of germ warfare, for example. Dowsing blankets with smallpox and giving these contaminated blankets to these tribespeople on their "reservations" which they were forced to inhabit! Giving free alcohol to "indians", who had never experienced such intoxication before in their lives. Genocide was commonplace in the early days of European (British/French/German/Dutch) settlers in the New World. So the "world" apparently consists of American values. And, as a result, the "world" is contaminated by Americans. Just as it can, apparently, be "saved" by Americans?

Does anybody else get a say? How far has the world been corrupted by American culture? Ask a bushman in the Amazon. Or a herdsman on the African savana. Or maybe a horseman on the Russian steppes. Or a goat herder on the Peruvian mountains. Or an Inuit on the edge of the Arctic. Or a Bhuddist monk on the foothills of the Himalyas. Did they make the "world" the place that it is? Do they inform our "collective consciousness"? Or is it just the monied few who determine the way the Earth should be "experienced"?

We in the West are stuck with an under-developed sense of self. That's my firm opinion. And I'm sure many would disagree. But that's diversity for you!

We are full of our own sense of importance. We lie a lot. Not only to tribespeoples of different cultures, but to each other. On a grand scale! Early explorers, who encountered peoples from different cultures, would offer them shiny beads and trinkets in exchange for their lands, resources, cultures and identities. We would be the ones "teaching" them about our gods and mores. And if they didn't accept our cultural 'superiority', we'd kill them! It is our, Western European "collective consciousness" that needs to be addressed.

So what do I mean by "under-developed sense of self"? Our psychological and emotional development depends on experience. Our brains make connections based on learning. All of our learning becomes experiential. Referring back to a previous post, I posited the idea that in our foetal, prenatal stage of development, as our brains develop we have no conscious awareness, nor previous experience in our memories from which to make sense of our experiences in the womb. These earliest memories get "forgotten" following the trauma of our entry into this world. However, the experiences are still recorded in the connections between neurons. Now, because we had no symbols (language, imagery, ideal types, etcetera,) those memories might get reinterpreted in the light of 'future' experiences. In my earlier post I suggested that these experiences could become the basis for religious experiences. 

Growing up demands an awful lot of 'life' experiences which, hopefully, teach us 'wisdom'. Were we to continue to rely on subsistance levels of existence we would have to mature quickly and pay more attention to our life-saving instincts. As it is now, we don't have the same pressures. Our hunting skills have been reduced to shopping! We are all consumers. Our biggest threat comes in the shape of our own kind. Predation comes in the form of salesmen and women. Administrators whom we call "bosses" and "politicians"! Legal-rational social control over the majority of innocent, genuinely hard-working people, who have done no harm to the (so-called) leaders of our groups. These are the real threats to our survival, unlike our ancestors who had to outsmart marauding hungry animals. 

We have an innate instinct to merge with the tribe. Together, throughout our existence on this planet, we've learned to adapt to our surroundings in very subtle ways. (This may sound a little controversial given that most anthropologists might argue that our ability to change the environment to suit our needs has been the main contributor to our success! However, it's my belief that our ability to learn through observation is the greatest weapon in our survival arsenal.) We adapt to the environmental pressures by 'herding' and learning from the mistakes and successes of our group members and  from other spieces.

I read many years ago about an experiment in Japan on macaque monkeys who were intelligent enough to learn to wash their food before eating it, following an accident in which an elderly matriarch dropped one into the water. After (I believe) two generations of teaching younger group members to do the same, it appeared to become a standard behaviour among the group. This phenomenon spawned a vague theory known as "the hundredth monkey syndrome". (Another variant on this theme is the "5 Monkeys Experiment" - which I've yet to find a reliable source for!) Essentially, we learn from each other. As a result, we seem to have learned that we need to be "governed" by people who have a vested interest in "governing" us for profit. As our culture (Western) has infested the world, we've imposed our behavious onto other cultures in a very petulant, adolescent way. Using guns and bombs! The more "success" we feel we have achieved, the less reason there is to question its "rightness". 

If we are to mature, we need to question more. Our sense of 'self' needs to be freed from the ease it has experienced in spending money and buying everything it can ever want! For that to happen, we need to break away from our 'hundredth monkey' acceptance of the 'norm'. If we make mistakes, so be it! We can learn from mistakes. To continue assuming that we've "got it right" whilst the planet, and all it's biological diversity, is being destroyed for the sake of short-term profit, is truly self-destructive. 

Maybe our "collective consciouness" should turn its attention to the damage caused by infantile greed and self-interest and look towards a more collective and inclusive mode of existence whereby we could all benefit?

The Growth Of Monopoly Power

The Growth Of Monopoly Power

 Number and Percentage of U.S. Manufacturing Industries in which Largest Four Companies Accounted for at Least 50 Percent of Shipment Value in Their Industries, 1947-2007:

Tony Benn - 10 min History Lesson for Neoliberals

Bank Bonuses Buy "Talent"?

I was wondering about an argument I've just had. It seems that bankers, financiers and corporate CEOs get paid huge amounts of money, plus ridiculous "bonuses" and financial "incentives", for their "talents". So I've been thinking about those very same "talents" that seem to be worth millions of pounds. What could possibly be worth more money that it would take three generations of the same family to spend? And why should the amount make such a difference to their capacity to perform?

Nigel Farage, UKIP's mouthpiece, keeps arguing that if we tax the rich at a higher rate, they'd simply "up-sticks" and leave the country! Why? Couldn't they live on millions of pounds then? I'm fairly certain I could! And which one's would go, if they were "unfairly taxed"? Would we really miss them? 

All this talk of "investment in jobs", and being "business friendly" is anathema to me! How about being "people friendly"? How about genuinely investing in people? If the rich elite want to go, let'em! There are more than 60 million people in this country. Does anyone think we'd all starve to death without them? Does anyone really believe that their "generosity" and "business accumen" are the only things keeping us "safe"?  And besides, most of their money is already registered "overseas"! (I know it's hidden in the Bank of Englad's vaults tax-free, but to get that tax-free status, they have to declare themselves 'non-domicile'!) So let them go and spend some quality time with their cash - and don't let them back until they've paid all they owe. 

The type of "talent" that some of these "quality" financiers have is more a mental disorder, as far as I can tell. If all one thinks about is "how much is this worth to me?", or "I couldn't work for less than a million quid!", then I feel that the "talent" they're displaying is either psychopathy, or sociopathy! No empathy, no thoughts about consequences, no regard for anyone else in society and blind to the pain caused to others. There are drugs for this sort of behaviour, aren't there?

With the size of Britain's population, I'm certain that there are economists, mathematicians, managers, entrepreneurs, and genuine hard working business people aplenty, who would have empathy and a care for others, who'd replace them for less than half the price!

Stockholm Syndrome and Abusive Relationships.

I've been searching for an appropriate metaphor or analogy to explain what's happening in this country with our corporate, political 'masters' and I suddenly experienced a eureka moment! Abusive relationships and the Stockholm Syndrome! Let me explain......

During the early days of my counselling career I used to counsel women from a nearby women's refuge. The idea being that they were able to see that not all men were 'equal'. Now, I'm aware that many men suffer abuse from their partners but for the purposes of this little essay I'm going to rely on the stereotype.

Here's one scenario: You (being female) find yourself 'pestered' by an extremely attentive guy. He treats you like a queen. He buys you gifts, chocolates, flowers and seems totally taken by you. He's attentive and listens to your every utterance. He's overly flattering and seems to admire every choice you make and does his best to help you solve every problem you encounter. His boyish charm, with a hint of vulnerability finally gets through and you find yourself taken by his persistence. Six months of bliss is suddenly broken as he slaps you! The moment comes as such a shock, seemingly for both of you. This uncharacteristic behaviour throws him into a grovelling, immature wreck. He's so apologetic you find yourself, (equally uncharacteristically), forgiving him. All goes well for another seven, or eight weeks. Then he slaps you again. He's just as apologetic, but this time the “reasons” for his behaviour become more emotionally charged. He did it because he's insanely in love with you. And if you hadn't done “x”, or spoken to “y”, this wouldn't have happened. You're now somewhat confused. “Was it my fault?” you begin to ask. The benefit of the doubt ensures you still let this one pass. As the weeks turn into months, you're finding that he's beginning to criticise little things. The dress you're wearing. Your hair could look better tied up, perhaps a bit less make-up, maybe you've spent a little too long talking to the bloke at the bar, etc. He only says all these things because he gets jealous, and he only gets jealous because he “loves” you. Gradually, your only social life is centred around him. By now he's made the threat that if you should leave him, he'll kill himself! His life is now your responsibility. You, in the meantime, have become confused and fearful. His mood-swings have become unpredictable. One minute he's so deeply in love with you, the next, you've done something to enrage him and he's punched you for it! His 'minor' criticisms have become major insults; “Your hair's a mess! You look like a prostitute! You're ugly and fat! You're unlovable and an embarrassment!” Interspersed with “I couldn't imagine life without you! You're my rock. I'm the only one who could love you.” Then the threats of; “If you're thinking of leaving me, I'll find you and kill you!” (And/or the kids if you've had any!)

One day, you're looking at yourself in the mirror, after innumerable visits to A&E thinking, “It's my fault. I am ugly. I can't do anything right. I'll never get anyone else.” Or, “He needs me, I'm the only one who can help him.” You yearn for those moments of intimacy and compassion, even if it only amounts to sexual intercourse for him. You imagine them to be more than they actually are. Your self-worth has been crushed. You live in abject fear of “doing the wrong thing” and “upsetting” him again. But you can't see a way out.

As a counsellor, I heard many stories of seriously abused women who had repeatedly visited casualty departments and had covered their tracks by visiting hospitals in different parts of the country, all believing that they were in some way to blame! All of my clients would say, at some very early point: “You wouldn't understand!” Usually followed by: “You don't know him, he can be wonderful.”

I was never allowed to let my feelings show in sessions but often, after a session, I would find myself weeping at the tragedy which had unfolded. The scenario would be repeated on many occasions and I felt helpless. But the biggest tragedy was the fact that the refuge workers had told me that if they were able to keep a client for longer than six weeks, they had a chance of saving them. However, within days, and sometimes hours, they would return to their abusive partners! Sadly, the frustrating truth was that the 'recovery' rate was exceedingly small.

An anecdote I'd like to share, just to hammer home the point concerns a friend and neighbour who'd telephoned me one evening to inform me that one of her friends had come to her house to escape her husband's fury. She had brought her young son with her. They both were, apparently, terrified. It took me less than ten minutes to reach my fiend's house where I was greeted by a painfully thin woman who was visibly shaking as I entered the room. We sat and talked for a few minutes when she gave me “that look”! One I'd seen so many times. A mixture of suspicion and contempt. The immortal words: “You wouldn't understand,” followed by; “he's not always like this, he can be lovely.” were offered. I gave her the number of the refuge and the name of the person I knew who would be taking the calls. I tried, as gently as I could to advise her that it was in her and her son's best interest to go to the refuge and spend just a couple of nights. She assured me that she would. However, as I left, I knew that nothing I'd said had made the slightest impression on her. As I arrived home, less than ten minutes later, my phone was ringing. It was my neighbour telling me that she'd left seconds after I and had returned to the enraged husband.

I don't know what happened to her but I do know of many women who have been killed by their “loving” partners. And that not many of these stories make the national press, especially those from the 'lower' working classes!

Why do these women stay? Fear is one good reason. But the Stockholm Syndrome, reinforced by fear, seems a much more tangible adhesive! Coming to sympathise with and believe their captors closes all avenues of rational thought. In an oblique way, they return for reasons of survival! Despite the obvious threat to life on one level, on another is, due to the complete destruction of self-worth, this is the only life they know! TINA – there is no alternative!

Now to use this tragic level of existence as a metaphor for the degree of brutality imposed by our neoliberal corporate masters.

To completely destroy our welfare system, to give away our right to free healthcare, to give away our possessions (e.g. Royal Mail, etc.), to sell our infrastructure, our energy supplies, to send our troops into resource wars, ill-equipped, to impose fracking and nuclear energy for profit and deny any green alternatives, to take our money and give it to super-rich individuals and corporate bodies – tax-free, to watch, heartlessly, as more and more people have to resort to foodbanks to feed their families, more and more people are rendered homeless, more and more sick and disabled punished, growing unemployment and under-employment, lower wages, less security, less democratic rights to complain or protest, ignoring the wishes of the majority, crushing small businesses, snubbing any UN cries of human rights violations, criticising EU “interference” in our judicial system, signing away our democratic rights to aggressive secret international trade agreements, cutting public spending to the bone and threatening us with heavy-handed policing. All of which sounds pretty abusive to me.

They can beat us at will. They can take our money at will. They can lock us up at will. And we take it. We believe TINA - there is no alternative. We're to believe they're doing it for our own good. We're to accept that other people's views (UN, EU, and the church) are to be ignored because “they don't understand us”! And we are too afraid to fight back!

Many people have died at the hands of these corporate controlled politicians and their deaths are not making the news! Many more will die prematurely. We will allow our own home ecology to be destroyed, let alone the global ecology, before we put an end to this abuse!

I'm not sure I even saved one of those women in my early years of counselling. I was only allowed to offer six one-to-one sessions. Beyond which was the support services of the refuge and social services – if they stayed. What I have learned along the way was the value of group therapy. Groups break the sense of isolation. It reveals the truth behind the lies and manipulation we've all fallen for! It also reveals the fact that we can achieve so much more if we work together! We are NOT idiots! If we work collectively, it is my conviction, that we can end this abuse and find a real and sustainable alternative.

From Save Lewisham Hospital campaign: fight Clause 118 and potential hospital closures | Blog | False Economy

From Save Lewisham Hospital campaign: fight Clause 118 and potential hospital closures | Blog | False Economy

Clearing My Head, Part Two.....

Our natural ecology is being routinely destroyed for profit. How are we supposed to survive without it? The delusion of neoliberalism is that there is an unlimited source of wealth. The biggest delusion however, is the belief that people are going to continue to take this punishment forever. There's a feeling that because they own the police forces and the armies, that they can maintain control indefinitely. An oddity arising from this is the fact that they're hoping to privatise the security services and lower recruits' living standards and salaries and still maintain control! (Good luck with that!) My fear is that revolution will lead to a totalitarian state with innocents being imprisoned and murdered. The leadership will appoint the most despotic individuals perceiving them to be some kind of heroic alternative. Then we return to a further history of deprivation and want for the many whilst the few benefit! Freud argued that the narcissistic tendency within moves to the 'right' in searching for control and security. Our natural tendency is to have strict rules and to know that “all bases are covered”! Leaving nothing to chance, we can be safe in the knowledge that our futures are predetermined. When things go wrong we need to cast blame on anything that appears to be operating “outside” of the rules. Durkheim also argued for strict social control. His famous “Study In Suicide” seemed to evidence such a position. There were less suicides in strict Catholic countries and communities because of the invariable social controls of the religions.

When confronted with economic collapse and political insecurity, Germans and Austrians needed something to blame. Propaganda and rhetoric led many of them to look to the Jews who, in a false historic sense, “broke the rules”. They were the first to employ usury to make profit, which in the Christian doctrine was a sin. They were, en masse, accused (wrongly) of crucifying Christ and were finally “convicted” of deliberately impoverishing Gentiles by owning the banking system! They broke enough of the social rules to be condemned to genocide! It was an easy task for Hitler to galvanise Germans to war by declaring her peoples the perfect beings who should rightly claim their place as the “controllers” of the world.

We see that, as a result of economic insecurity across Europe, a stark rise in neo-fascism. In Britain we have UKIP, BNP, EDL, and various other ultra-right groups enticing working class people with anecdotal nonsense devoid of any fact or truth, but reflecting an inner (narcissistic) need to control. Neo-Nazis are raging across Eastern Europe with young people raging against that “something” inexplicably damaging their lives and taking away their opportunities. All seeking to blame “outsiders” for their misfortune. Blinded by false promises of “ownership”.

The danger in all of this is that we're heading towards another World War. And this one WILL be the war to end wars! China verses Japan, the US verses China and North Korea, Pakistan verses India, Europe verses Africa, Russia and the UK verses the Middle East, Israel verses Palestine. Tensions are rising across the globe. And largely because of trade agreements. Monetary arrangements between competing economies ruled by small numbers of individuals and corporations seeking global control of wealth! Not, as we might be propagandised into believing, for competing ideologies and religion.

I'm an atheist. When I first considered the destructive aspects of religion, I believed that their only concern was world domination. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, in all their forms and sects, seemed to be fighting each other throughout history for ideological supremacy. Catholics verses Protestants, Sunnis verses Shiites, and so on. But I now know I was wrong. Although the people may have been fighting for something they were told to believe in, the rulers were hoping for victory to further their power and influence. And more importantly, wealth! Wealth and resources are what wars are all about. Underlying all the evangelical wailing and preaching is the hope that enough gullible people will go out and fight their “enemies” and make their “leaders” rich. Greed is what starts wars. Anything else, be it religion, or political persuasion, is propaganda. Feed the ignorant masses enough of what they want to hear and we can rule the world!

Right now, I'm seeking to enlighten myself about these matters. My Facebook newsfeed is full of stories about how greed is killing both the planet and most of its inhabitants. I'm exploring the psychology behind all of this. Things like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, fear, psychopathy, empathy, emergence, group dynamics and emotion. What makes us human? What makes some people want to kill others without fear, or remorse? What makes business leaders believe in an unlimited supply of wealth? What makes spies and military personnel operate against their better judgement? What makes a suicide bomber? What makes people so gullible? I know some of the answers to those questions but my real question would be: How can we change these things?

Geo-political tensions raise spectre of 1914 Great War - World Socialist Web Site

Geo-political tensions raise spectre of 1914 Great War - World Socialist Web Site

Clearing My Head.....

Neoliberalism needs some explanation. It has a long history, despite the “neo” (new) post-tag. Libertarianism started with the rise of the Industrial Age and has continued to the present, with some minor modifications. As the profit margins of the wealthy began to increase, so did the amount of tax levied on them. This called for some radical thinking for the nouveau riche. Up to the time of industrialisation politico-economics was rooted in the feudal system. Most of the land/agricultural-based wealth was owned by a few aristocratic families. Industrialisation was creating profits away from traditional sources and so began the birth of consumerism. People who once worked on the land or in small cottage industries, moved into burgeoning cities to work in factories in the hope of making more money. Factory work, early mass production techniques and fast terrace-style house building led to a decrease in skills for many of the workers encouraged to work in these conditions. Some problems arose as a small number of “commoners” began gaining wealth through entrepreneurial business acumen. Wealth was no longer the domain of the aristocracy.

“Globalisation”, as a concept, appears new. But it also has a long history. When considered in the light of Empire building, it dates back thousands of years. International trade routes were established by the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Danes, Chinese and any other country with an army and navy! The British Empire encapsulated nearly a third of the globe by the onset of industrialisation. Fabulous wealth was not unheard of for the aristocrats and royalty. But it was now available to entrepreneurial commoners. In some ways, to maintain the status quo in society, many royal orders were bestowed on rich industrialists such as knighthoods and lordships, carrying additional 'rights' in law along with land allocations. (Viewed in this way feudalism is not dead!)

Libertarianism is a means of maintaining the old system which, burdens the taxation needed to finance the country's infrastructure onto the “peasants”, whilst luxuriating in the wealth “earned” through the exploitation of those same “peasants”, who's lives become superfluous, needed only to enrich the already rich 'upper' classes. Just as they have been throughout history. But there was a fly in the ointment! For a workforce to be effective, some education was required, at least to a basic level. Some reading was needed, as was some basic mathematics to run new machinery and to calculate the most productive methods. How far could industrialists go in educating the masses? History shows that, for its needs, it probably went too far!

In the hub of industrialisation in Britain, Manchester, people began to feel the pressures of exploitation. Some organised themselves and marched onto the town centre, en-masse, to protest at the levels of poverty they were experiencing, only to be brutally rebuffed by the local government of the day who ordered the heavily armed Hussars into the crowd. Some 80 unarmed people were murdered and many more were seriously injured. It became known as the Peterloo Massacre. Such was the embarrassment felt by the government that new laws were introduced to give workers more rights. This saw the beginnings of the left-wing Charteris movement which, in turn, led to the birth of unions and the Labour Party. An educated labour-force meant more consideration had to be afforded to the working classes.

Education, as anyone would agree, should be a right for all. However, there is education and education. What do you teach people who are only expected to work to make wealth for the already wealthy? Firstly, 'obedience'! The education system for the masses have many things in common with 'work'. They have a regimented day. A clear 'start-time', a 'break' in the morning, 'lunch-time', and an afternoon 'break'. Then a clear 'finishing' time. It also promotes blind obedience to “the rules”, which includes subservience to the authority of the teacher (boss)! The teacher also answers to the Head, who answers to higher authorities! A reflection of the working world we know. As to the lessons taught. Here we have an issue. Recent research has shown that schoolchildren of the great Western powers are lagging behind their Far Eastern cousins. Why would that be? Surely we have access to the same books and information? It boils down to the methods. Our pupils are taught (chiefly) by rote. They are taught just to 'remember' certain facts and figures with neither comment nor critical thought. In fact, for many who reach Further and Higher education, one of the first lessons taught is how to think critically! Is it surprising then, that when they reach Higher Education, we see more student activists becoming aware of political inconsistencies?

Neoliberals are trying to address this issue by restricting student numbers through financial constrictions and tougher entry requirements. But what about those privileged enough to reach the 'Oxbridge' standard? Their education bears a more philosophical slant. But the philosophy is rooted in the Libertarian ideology. The analogy of their economics takes the form of the “feeding the pony” theory. Feed the pony enough oats and, eventually, what it excretes will be enough to feed the sparrows! Hayek used the “cascading-down” effect of making the rich richer. “Wealth creation” is the province of the already wealthy. To create jobs for the workers, entrepreneurship is the first requirement and should be fully rewarded. Taxing these individuals only de-motivates them and suffocates innovation, (apparently). Secondly, investment from all sources should be encouraged. Taxing these individuals (or corporations, treated as individuals in law) would be equally disastrous for the economy because their returns would be less attractive! These concepts are the fruits of the London School of Economics (LSE), and the Chicago model of economics. The proposal being that “market forces”, unhindered by human intervention, would drive the economy in an upward sustainable trajectory. We could all be wealthy! All it requires is individual effort. Human failings are the result of individual choice. Thatcher famously stated; “There is no society. Only the man, the woman and the family!” By which she meant, we should all, individually, take responsibility for our successes and failures. 'Choice' was open to all.

The logic is very seductive – if you're already financially secure! The philosophy has much going for it. Firstly, as individuals we have to seek out the opportunities available to us, have the temerity to take them and the tenacity to see them through. Once duly rewarded for our efforts, we can take pride in our achievements at beating the opposition. Can you see a problem with this? Let's carry on. “Market forces” refers not just to “pricing” in a consumer-based economy, but to workers' wages and rights. If a potential employee seeking employment in a factory/store/telephone exchange, or whatever, finds that the pay and conditions do not match his/her requirements s/he goes elsewhere, leaving the potential employer bereft of a possible good worker. The employer, upon receiving several rebuttals for his/her vacancy must then reconsider the employment pay and conditions to attract workers. So the theory goes! Hayek and his ilk believed that some “invisible hand” would govern pricing, workers' pay and conditions and all social interactions if left unrestricted by governments and their pesky laws! We would all “find a level”.

There is a major flaw in the theory which, incidentally, is the same flaw used to describe Socialism's perceived failings. Human greed! Hayek argued that Socialism could not work because it would require too much government intervention leading to a totalitarian state. Intervention in Socialism, he argued, would be necessary to control a basic human failing – greed. His model would be self-controlled by societal pressures. Which is unmitigated, paradoxical nonsense! A case of cognitive dissonance. If we are to rely on individual choice and effort, if “there is no such thing as 'society'”, then what does control it? What we are seeing today is the result of unregulated human greed in action!

The obvious fact of individualisation is that “competition” produces winners and losers. In many competitive endeavours there can only be one winner. What then happens to the many “losers”? In competitive business practices the most ruthless and deeply egocentric competitors become the “winners”. People not averse to the most brutal and dishonest tactics to succeed. The more emotionally mature, honest and considerate “losers” are left to make the best of what they have.

Neoliberal “leaders” have created a dynamic which has allowed corporations unfettered access to all the money accrued by workers' efforts over generations. Untaxed and hoarded (human greed?) leaving less available to those who actually earned it, and denying the “choices” supposedly available to all through education, entrepreneurial innovation and investment. Basically covering any competitive threat! It never worked during our feudal history, and it doesn't work now! For its success, human greed needs to be fed at the cost of those unable to topple their authority. Inequality has to be maintained as an indicator of the level of success! How else would one measure success? Winners and losers! The more losers there are, the “stronger” the “winners” appear to be! If people are starving to death, how great must the feeling of “victory” be? Narcissism is boosted and the “fight” continues. “To the victor, the spoils!”

Ultimately, the only direction unbound neoliberalism can take is total global domination for the few “strong” individuals who have destroyed all potential opposition. Until that time, each country that falls to the victors can only be perceived as one small battle. We're rapidly approaching a global business deal that takes away democratic rights of everyone in their own countries! Most of these “trade deals” are done in secret. Why? Because if the masses read and understood the terms of these agreements they would immediately reject them! “Free trade” means corporations can impose their own rules to the terms of purchase and sales of goods and services. They cannot be controlled by any country's incumbent government! So, for example, if there were environmental issues that people objected to, hard-luck! If it impinges on the rates of profits sought by corporates, then they can legally sue the government for those losses! New trade agreements are being sought across the globe that are even more restrictive to the peoples of all our countries! Again, being sought secretly!

There is a war occurring that we're mostly blind to. It's a class war. We're heading towards a world dominated by the rich elite and we, the rest of us, are being seduced by false promises. The mantra of “hard-working people” used by the Tories is a distraction. Aimed chiefly at the ill-informed 'middle-classes' who are more likely to vote for them, it attempts to resonate with the truly hard-working poor who are barely making ends meet. For election victory in the current electoral system only around 30% of the vote is necessary. With media saturation showing the “positives” of neoliberalism, and the threat that “there's no alternative” to it, because the bankers and corporates would bankrupt economies should they fail, people are blinded to any possible alternatives. We've also been seduced by “stuff”! Consumerism is the method by which economies are said to benefit. So we should all be consumers of goods, services, education, health, security and anything else that can be sold! Which is something of a paradox for most of us. How, if we're under-, or unemployed are we supposed to pay for all this “stuff”?

Some Historical Perspective......

Over the years I've watched political changes from the likes of Harold MacMillan, through to the Wilson/Heath battles and on to Callaghan's defeat by Thatcher. Most of the time I was busy with life making some small gains and some massive mistakes! (One step forward, two steps back, if you like.) All of the time, however, aware of the impact of politics on our lives, albeit in a very naïve way: Labour for the workers, Tory for the bosses and Liberals for some centre ground. After the miners strike ('84-'85), I sensed a seismic shift had occurred. The unions lost power and those hard-earned workers' rights began to erode. At job interviews, when allowed to ask questions of the interviewer(s), I remember, as a young man, asking if the company had a union. That was a sensible question in the 60s and 70s! Ask that now and you can guarantee a failed application.

But beyond work is the everyday existence of folk trying to survive in a hostile world where every aspect of life is based on the 'ability-to-pay' rule. Even this is gradually being eroded for many of our fellow countrymen and women. And it's happening without opposition! More and more people are being forced into destitution, despair, starvation and untimely death, because of the actions of a few greedy individuals who care not one jot, or iota, for the suffering of our fellow beings. I DO care. And not just about what's happening all around us right now, but about the damage that's being done to our future.

Our children and grandchildren will pay the price for the follies of today. The welfare system, which we're being asked to believe is “unaffordable”, will disappear. There will be no 'safety net', nor pensions for our kids. “Work, or starve” will be the mantra. There will be no affordable health care. Transport will be the reserve of the commuter class and the luxury of the wealthy. The poor, infirm and disabled will be ghettoised, leaving the rich to enjoy the spoils. Does this sound like I've gone too far?

Here's a little anecdote: The Chris Evans Radio 2 Breakfast Show has a 'pause-for-thought' section. I was listening to it a few days ago when a lady religious luminary was talking about her recent visit to India. She described a visit to a small shanty-town just outside Delhi where she met some “wonderful people” who had made a life for themselves among landfill sites. There were piles of plastic in one area, piles of paper in another, wool and other clothing materials in yet another, and so on. The small community would help themselves to these materials to sell for what little they could to pay for food and essentials. Everyone, of all ages, would take a hand in foraging. This lady was, apparently, “inspired” by these people and their “sense of community and fun” in the face of such adversity. She extolled the virtue of being “happy with our lot”, contrasting the 'difficulties' of our lives with theirs! It's this kind of nonsense that I find almost impossible to swallow. Our kids, and their kids, could easily end up in the same pit of deprivation if things are left unchallenged.

I post because I want people to open their eyes to what's happening around them – right under their noses! Our infrastructure is being sold off to the lowest bidder, including the NHS, education, Royal Mail, railways, energy, property. In fact, if it isn't nailed down, these neoliberal fraudsters will steal it and sell it! That translates to; we pay more for less, whilst they pocket the cash. Taxes reduced, or even avoided by the rich, whilst the poorest take on the burden (for less and less of the services tax revenue is supposed to pay for), the infirm and disabled being ostracised and gradually killed off, education being unaffordable to the less privileged, where will it end? Should we be “happy with our lot” like our Asian brothers and sisters? It shouldn't happen in India, never mind in our “developed” economy! Did you know there's enough wealth among the top 1% wealthiest to end World poverty THREE TIMES OVER!! And they want more! I say - “NO MORE!”

I'm too old and impoverished to do an awful lot about these things, but there are lots of people among my friends, and yours, who can make a difference. So forgive me if I continue to post my political “bollox”, but I will carry on until neoliberalism is eradicated from our political landscape. I want a future for all our kids!