How we are made to work

In the recent years there has been more and more pressure on academic workers and educated workers. Work gets extremely standardized and regulated, much like factory work did a 100 years ago. The long-term goal of companies, and the humans behind them, is to make every kind of job a collection of small, well described tasks, so that they can evenetualy be automated and humans can be replaced. This will lower costs for the owners and investors, and make more profit. These people don't give a single solitary f..k about the people who lose their jobs, who cannot support their family anymore, and societies where the general buying power is decreasing. It is an extremely short sighted and selfish direction the economy is going in.

Politicians assist this. Since no one else but the richest companies and individuals have enough money to influence politicians and their parties, no one else has substantial influence on politicians. Except some of the strongest and oldest media products, much of tv, websites and newspapers is politically motivated fake news stuff that only serves to sway people's attention away from the real issues and keep them occupied with movies, scandals, sports, and non-issues (gender-related issues, minor corruption cases, etc.).

The political classes in Europe and the US, as well as in Japan, have been cooperating in bleeding out the social services, freezing the pay of people below top managerial level in all public services. All good people are driven to the companies, which enforce stricter and stricter regulations on workers, and demand long hours and ridiculous flexibility. They demand relocation, constant travel and other forms of engagement which ruins social structures. It makes proper family life impossible and taking part in one's local community is not an option either. The networks which are necessary for a healthy society disappear, old people end up in care homes, kids spend their times with nannies if the parents are well off, and in daycare or on the street if they're not.

This is not a serious way to make a society work. And it requires urgent change.

Drive for climate change and drive for healthy societies demands states which can regulate the economy and companies. For this, ownership of means of production needs to be regulated too.

Sadly, we know from history that such changes do not happen without violence. Unless our politicians push now for radical change in the economy and ownership structures - homes and means of production - the inequality will increase, buying power levels will drop further, this will lead to higher crime rates, more insecurity, and shrinking populations.

Our new feudal realms - part 1

Two years ago I wrote a post that showed how we are lapsing back into feudalism. Extremely wealthy elites of professional, life-long reigning politicians and born-rich business and land owners have an enormous influence. They decide what happens in politics. These people are not members of a single nation. There are rather interests groups of them who work together. There are a few such groups in the US, in China, in the EU, in Russia and in most countries.

These people have figured out how to exploit democratic institutions for their own purposes. They rely on expert PR teams, lobbyists, spin doctors, rich supporters who own media outlets and links with the military. Most of these folks are motivated by money, or by ambition, or by a belief that they are the best for the world. Or a mixture of these. None of these delusions are true.

 

Some evidence would be nice you say?

China made Xi Jinping lifelong head of the party and the country. This is tragic. China was in a chaotic and exploited situation at the end of the imperial system around 1910. The abolishing of the old system was followed by almost 40 years of bloody civil wars between local warlords, strongmen, the communists, and the republicans. The British, the French, the Americans, the Russians, German, Dutch, and the Japanese all used this upheaval to push their influence on the country.
Maybe China went then the right way, maybe it didn't. But at least it abolished the single-person rule system, it became a strong free state, and had decent, stable government. The lack of human rights, of free speech, of accountability and transparency is tragic and horrible, as is police and party brutality. Add to this military aggression. Still, for the average Chinese citizen things were better than before.
This period is over. The country is back to the old system. Communism effectively was turned into a one-person lad dictatorship again. A sad, tragic story for a great country and people.

Turkey's democracy got gutted by Erdogan and his cronies. This process took place in front of our eyes, it is well documented and understood. Again, a sad end to a promising path to a country that was a much freer state 20 years ago than it is today.

Putin holds Russia firmly in his hands and showed in several state orchestrated cases against influential business and media actors that he is not afraid to use the whole state machinery to take anyone down opposing his circles.

Trump said several times that he is looking up to Putin and Xi as successful, respectable leaders.

And Orban in Hungary is the prime example of someone deconstructing the democratic state at light speed in order to establish himself and his family at the centre of the state permanently. Other anti-democratic leaders or would be leaders in the EU are dreaming of the same - most notably in Poland - but have been kept in check so far by the other countries and their own population. It seems that only the Hungarians, who have suffered from a semi-feudal monarchic systems inequalities until WWII - are foolish enough to choose returning to the old system, instead of trying to make democracy work.

We will soon find ourselves again as peasants and servants. In a world run by aristocrats and kings.

 

Vincent Van Gogh, Femme semant/Peasant Woman Sowing with a Basket (1881)

Inequality, income, and democracy

I've always been committed to the idea that economic growth is important, that the interests of companies and employers had to be taken into account and given due weight in considering policies and in politics in general. Still, what we are witnessing at the moment is similar to what people have witnessed in the second half of the 19th century, and the first decades of the 20th. We are witnessing an enormous inequality between people who own companies, shares in companies, land, and estates. And we see that instead of more fair and and egalitarian re-investment of significant portions of these gigantic amounts of wealth, a few individuals are sitting on them. This is so in the US, West and East Europe, just as much as in Japan, Australia, or in Russia, India and China.

Governments are more and more reluctant to intervene and do their job in running societies well by creating legal and financial environments that are conducive to good societies. And they are more and more inclined to make their members extremely wealthy in exchange of giving the richest even more freedom. These governments are failing the societies which elected them, and know that they do. So they spend large sums on expert marketing and communication, and highlight issues and direct common talk in ways so that people are occupied with questions of nationalism, immigration, belonging and being a member of the community, personal and community identities. Such issues are important, but they should be issues where tolerance reigns, and communities take care of their own identities. People are not imbeciles in need of constant guidance. Especially not from politicians.

However, politicians and their advisory teams know very well that such questions sell, that it is easy to create stifle and tension between people, and they can be distracted from their further exploitation by such topics. What we need to start focusing on is a fight. It is a fight in which we need to engage in. We need to push back on the governments, the political and the business elite, the large owners, and the estate moguls. We need to force them to create the kind of societies we want to live in. We need to do this peacefully, but firmly. No votes for people who don't represent our interest. In fact, no money for them. We need much stronger checks and balances, and much higher levels of civilian engagement. We need to be there, call these people back, and sack them if they are not representing the interests which they should be representing. And we need politicians who are willing and able to stand up against the private players lurking in the backgrounds.

People like Trump, Xun, Putin, May and others won't do this job. They are part of the wealthy class and are very much willing to run their countries so that while stability is ensured, as much money as possible is diverted to their supporting clubs and circles. This is not a global issue, independent or race, nation, colour. It is a moral, political, and a class issue. People who have wealth and influence out of proportion are running the game. And they don't run it fairly.

What we need is to stand up and organize our representation. We desperately need a union that represents all workers in the EU. Not based on nation, not based on cultural background, but on the fact that capitalism does not ensure that workers and employers are in the same position when bargaining for wages. When people are selling their time and energy they are vulnerable, while a class of huge owners could live comfortable lives even if they would never again work. We need to change this. Security, safety, wellbeing are things we all need. And the current system does not ensure that hard work gets you any of this.

Why low salaries, low taxes on the rich, and sitting on one's money isn't good for the economy

Inequality is bad for the economy. When masses of people don’t have money they can’t spend it on goods and services, and therefore there is no consumption. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few families is harmful for everyone in society. No matter how rich someone is, they can only buy so many cars, and dine at so many luxury restaurants. Their spending will be minuscule compared to the spending of thousands, or millions of people. Companies and businesses can't grow, competition just gets fiercer the way  things are now, which will lead to even more companies failing. If we want more growth and more social justice, as well as political stability, we need to have higher taxes on the rich and the biggest corporations, and raise wages. Simple as that.

Why everyone should be a feminist

In my previous post I proposed that there is inequality which disadvantages all women around the globe. Anyone not wanting to change that situation seems irrational, or self-serving and hence morally blameworthy. Since this situation affects half of the Earth's population the matter is urgent, that is why it merits its own treatment.

Why should everyone accept that this is so?

Well, we know at the moment the following: We know that there is inequality that we can all agree is wrong. Namely:

- Income inequality: women doing the same job get lower salaries in many places.

- Chance inequality: often when admitting students or hiring applicants for a job male's are preferred, even if there is no other relevant differentiating detail in the applicants' CVs.

- Recognitional inequality: women get promotions and favourable performance reviews less often. This even happens - sadly - when women rate women, or for example when students rate teachers and lecturers.

- Inequalities in further gender-role based expectations: it is widely different how much work is expected from a woman to be spent raising her children, cleaning, and providing other essentials for her family. On top of this in many societies there are further unequally spread expectations such caring for the elderly and the sick, playing community roles, or being physically attractive.

To the last inequality some people object: but there is a similar expectation towards man, just look at the fact that handsome man are on TV and in ads. But this argument is wrong because it mixes up two things: it is very different that some people (among them some women) enjoy, and on men expecting women to look good. This is especially salient, because for women looks are often less important in choosing partners, whereas men sometimes 'punish' women on the basis of their looks, going even as far as to leave them, or making employment, promotions, and so on conditional on appearances.

All the above listed are inequalities between men and women that are proven, that have been measured and observed in experiments, and can be read off from economic data. It is certainly obvious to any grownup that this situation needs to be changed.

With this, I’m not saying that woman should not care about their looks, not have children, etc. but that this should be in their freedom to choose, and not what is expected of them to be prioritized. I’m sure many would choose to those these things, as these activities can be very joyful, rewarding, fulfilling, etc. for some people, and there is nothing wrong with them in themselves. What is wrong if someone chooses these activities because they are made to believe that that’s the only right thing to do and they should choose it otherwise something is wrong with them.

Of course as with any problem that is very large scale we should look at the causes of the problem. As with other social-psychological large scale problems there are social structural problems in the background. Most plausibly the factors are that: 

- Girls are not encouraged to follow certain career paths, and life-way, and to also experiment with new life paths, and

- women are given role models and feedback that prioritizes the traditional gender behavior, plus

- there is a lack of viable role models and alternatives, a lack of support for these, and a lot of punitive political and social action and feedback if one tries to step out of line.

- Add on top of this that due to implicit bias even people and organizations who are consciously and explicitly committed to equality make sometimes biased judgments.

What we need to do is to provide choices, and a range of role models, and to protect those who are punishing women for following their own paths. Just as a man nowadays one can aim at becoming a good father, an astronaut (the most boring example of aiming high), a lawyer, an electrician, and a nurse; a carer, an artist, a dancer, a bachelor, a family man, a community fighter, a lone wolf, etc. so all options should be open and the same should be available for any woman. And just as all these different types of men are cheered on, and there are people who reassure them that they are filling in a role that is needed, that they are making the right choices, so, women need the same kind of assurance, whatever track they choose, and whichever way they go.

There are some important mistakes that need to be avoided while giving positive feedback. One of them is essentialism, the idea that there is some element of the traditional gender role that has to be maintained to be still a woman. This mistaken notion has had harmful effects already in many cases in the last 40 years. Just look at supposedly ‘empowering’ videos featuring woman who train hours every day and appear in the videos dancing in minimal clothing  - reinforcing one of the most harmful stereotypes that being attractive sexually is what being a woman is - and perform stereotypical male actions like handling power tools, fighting and shooting, taking revenge, driving sports cars, and so on.

What would be needed instead would be the message that "Hey, you men – most of you – aren’t like that either, and I don’t need to be like a man anyway. I’m happy to let go of the traditional woman package too: I don’t have to be sexy, and I don’t have to wield power tools or be a top business executive. I can be an okay lawyer or counselor, or ... whatever! I can have my average business dealing in whatever I know about, I can write books or pretty much do whatever I want. I can identify with whatever I want, and I can change. If I want to be like that I will be." Of course I'm not advocating radical individualism or that in making up one's mind about how one should live one shouldn't take into consideration one's family, loved ones, and community. But not in the way that one only thinks of the ways one could contribute to the life of others as people living in more rigid times did.

 

Of course in some cases there might be people who can 'max out' both the requirements of the traditional male and female stereotype. But that to me seems overly ambitious taken that most of us don’t even succeed in either one of those two categories even when some of us try. What seems to be much saner is to treat these options as a basket into which one puts what one can identify with – this can change as life goes on. Of course commitments have to be taken seriously and people should be encouraged to foster their skills, talents, work hard, help others, raise amazing kids and so on – but not to do all these things at the same time. 

The mistake of pushing woman to pursue corporate and top-manager careers at all costs definitely has to be avoided. Liberation is not to have to be like some of the most competitive, stressed, overworked and sometimes unscrupulous man. And it definitely isn't being like that, plus taking upon oneself to also tick the boxes of fitting the traditional women-roles. One should not be forbidden to achieve such things, but no one should be expected to accomplish such crazy feats which are not good for employers, persons, and kids in most cases. 

So, what needs to be done? Our communities need to provide more support and give more trust to woman whatever their goals and pursuits are. We need to provide girls with many options. Whatever they want to keep or reject from the traditional ‘woman’ package, and whatever else they won’t to buy into, they need to be encouraged to give it their best and figure out if it fits them.

As I said, getting rid of inequality is not taking on elements of the traditional male package or combining those elements with traditional female elements. This also calls for work-place reform: workplaces and environments shouldn’t be built to suit mostly guys, and then claim that they are women friendly if a woman can adjust and get along in them. That’s not equality, that’s expecting women to take on traditional male roles.

What’ better is to offer more employment flexibility: 4 and 6 hours positions, work from home options, opportunities to learn and stay engaged and connected while at home with children and return later, etc. There is nothing necessary in constantly prioritizing people in jobs who are 100% percent devoted to their workplace. While this might be good in short term profits for bigger companies in large economies, it surely isn’t good in the long term. Humans live in states partly to foster happiness and cooperation, not the operations of super-wealthy individuals owning companies. And surely not, that companies can make profits on employing unhappy, unsatisfied, and unhealthy, overstressed people.

Companies get away with these things too easily: they focus on profits, and that is said to be okay in capitalism. Nobody seems to notice that companies only get the best of the employees and state services and communities bear the burden of dealing with stressed, burnt out, disillusioned individuals. Capitalism is not a higher order system when compared with a society, and its demands should not be placed higher than those of communities of humans.

This proposal is in my opinion a modest feminist proposal with which everyone could get on board. It focuses on eradicating striking inequalities as well as their roots. It does not propose that people of either gender should rule or dominate the other gender, nor that one or the other gender is better. People of both genders show a striking variety of emotion, thought, taste, and preferences in lifestyles. Why is it that men can tolerate this in each other but not in women? Once we let go of the notion that there is one type of women it will also be easier for men: just treat women as people, as persons who might or might not like different things, who think this or that way. You can ask questions, find these things out, get to know them, talk with them and so on. Don’t stress about figuring out some supposedly existent female mystique, or getting right 'what women want'. It is as different as what we guys want. I guess you will find that you can even have female friends, because, guess what: they have thoughts, ideas, can be fun, and are interesting.

On the road back to feudalism

There is a gruesome trend we can observe: economic inequality is starkly on the rise in every country on Earth and fundamentalist, radical parties are gaining more and more following.

Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?

Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?

We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.

The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.

We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.

Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.

It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.

The GOP, Republicans, and free market capitalism

The GOP's website features under the 'Republican Platform' the programme Restoring the American Dream: Economy and Jobs. Under subsection heading 'Job Creation: Getting Americans back to work' we find a long tirade about how everyone will be better off thanks to some - unexplained - 'roaring' economic growth. The paragraph ends by saying "Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all."

Sure this is an empty promise. But beyond that it is also widely deceiving. What we see these days is that the distance between the wealthiest people in society and the most disadvantaged ones is bigger than before WWI, when many Europeans countries still had Aristocrats who fell under different rules. This enormous level of inequality is coupled with i) housing problems, ii) rising rent levels, iii) rising debt levels, iv) governments cutting down on social services, education, and health services. These processes together lead to even more suffering and vulnerability for the majority of people.

What the Republicans are proposing is to make this situation even worse. The problem with the current, heavily de-regulated US and European free market economies is not that they don't offer chances, options, or freedom to choose one's jobs. The problem is that thanks to the deregulation most people who don't have extensive financial resources - and that is the majority of society - don't have viable options that would allow them to i) pay for their rent/mortgage, ii) make savings, iii) educate their children, iv) pay their bills in case of healthcare relate bigger expenses. What the Republicans are proposing is to exacerbate this situation. The owners of companies, factories, etc. will be able to offer even more demeaning, predatory, and exploitative work arrangements. I don't think there is anything compelling in voting for such a party.