Psychopathy is generally-understood to have a negative effect on society overall: so can psychopaths therefore be classified as an "evil" influence on society?
I wrote earlier about how psychopathy usually results in sadistic behaviour towards society; and how some (atheistic) political ideologies and fundamentalist religious ideas can be placed into different expressions of sadism, and therefore may be seen as attempts to organise psychopathic behaviour into a social order. The leaders of such political ideologies and fundamentalist religions are therefore inevitably psychopaths (or at least display a high degree of psychopathy); hence their position.
The relationship between psychopathy and "evil" is explained in the excellent article here. In other words, much of the "evil" seen in society may well be attributable to psychopathy, especially when it is clear that a disproportionate number of them gain positions of power.
All that being said, there is also a scientific argument pointing out that psychopathy is a naturally-occurring aspect of the human condition and natural evolution. As I mentioned in an earlier article, psychopathy can be seen as belonging to a small "predator" segment of human society, one that has evolved from the nomadic, hunter-gatherer societies of pre-history, adapted to "civil" societies that were settled and less war-like, and learned to prosper in the quasi-Capitalist societies that flourished in Europe around the time of the renaissance. The industrial revolution and European Imperialism would have created even richer social conditions for the psychopaths in human society to exploit.
In this environment, psychopaths would have more easily "risen to the top": being amoral and sexually-promiscuous, this would have created the conditions for a potential proliferation of psychopathy, given the right conditions. As psychopaths are hard-wired to thrive in anarchic and fast-changing environments (that "normal" humans struggle in), this therefore gives an alternative explanation to the human factors that led to the wars of the 20th century and the rise of modern-day Globalisation.
Psychopathy therefore gives a fresh angle on the theory of "creative destruction", popular with right-wing Capitalists. Creating chaos is one of a psychopath's modus operandi; but also much of human progress has been due to out-of-the-box thinking and independent thought, which is another of a psychopath's attributes. Because psychopaths' thought patterns are different from an ordinary person, it means they can be capable of thinking about a problem in a more flexible way; because the fear-generating part of their brain doesn't properly work, they can execute their will without being concerned about the consequences; and because they are not prone to accepting responsibility, mistakes will be apportioned to someone else or a factor out of their control, leaving them free to continue.
In this way, psychopaths are fearless in experimenting with ideas: if put in a position of power, they can put their trial-and-error methodology into practice on human society. A psychopathic CEO of a pharmaceutical company can therefore try out a potentially-dangerous untested drug on thousands of people without a flicker of conscience, and if they all die, shrug his shoulders and move on; a psychopathic national leader can do the same with thousands of his own citizens, and their deaths can be called a "necessary national sacrifice".
If a psychopath therefore has the intelligence to not be caught by the authorities, and the self-discipline not to let his narcissism, indolence, spontaneity, proneness to boredom, and sadism over-power him, then he has the potential to rise to the top of society. This explains why so many psychopaths are at the pinnacle of the social ladder, hidden, or "socially-adapted" so that their condition is channeled into a suitable career outlet (such as the military, or position of social and moral authority).
If amorality is considered the equivalent of "evil", then psychopaths are, by definition, evil; perhaps even the "highest" form of evil.
But if that is true, then it raises the question of the social "necessity" of evil; that for a society to understand the difference between "good" and "evil", "evil" has to, by nature, exist to some degree. If it were, in theory, possible to identify and cure psychopathy from human society, what would the result be?
As human evolution has indicated, psychopathy exists in society as a natural human adaptation. Psychopaths may be "evil", but they have probably also been responsible for much human progress; being humanity's natural entrepreneurs, and making fearless decisions when others have been too confounded by moral confusion to do so.
Psychopaths are therefore a human "necessary evil"; a moral trade-off as, for example, when societies willingly surrender their collective freedoms to a single charismatic leader at "times of crisis". Adolf Hitler is an obvious example; Joseph Stalin is another (though both psychopathic sadists, their sadism showed different attributes, as explained here).
It would be therefore counter-productive to human evolution to try and eradicate the "evil" of psychopathy; worse, it would be far more likely that a number of opportune psychopaths would try to take control of such an operation, leaving society with perhaps fewer psychopaths, but with disproportionately more of them in positions of moral authority.
Such a result would bring human society closer to a closed hierarchy like during medieval times; quite literally a step back into The Dark Ages.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
David Cameron and David Miranda: abuse of power and a culture of corruption
The latest revelations that David Cameron may well have personally sanctioned the detainment of the Brazilian partner of a Guardian journalist at Heathrow airport tells you all you need to know about the psychology of the British Prime Minister.
This is the latest event in a pattern of behaviour demonstrating that Cameron has a supremely casual attitude to his responsibilities; seems to have little understanding of the meaning of "corruption"; and with the Miranda detainment, supports the view that the rule of law and use of his position can be abused when it is politically convenient.
Cameron is hardly the first British PM to have overstepped his powers; Tony Blair's abuse of anti-terror laws led to the police and surveillance culture, whose resulting incompetence resulted in the death of another Brazilian, Jean Charles De Menezes. In that way, Cameron is following Blair's example, but with nowhere near as much acumen. While Blair may well be held indirectly responsible for creating the police culture that led to the death of De Menezes, he cannot be held directly to account for a series of chaotic police actions.
In the case of Miranda, the order for his detention seems to have come directly from Cameron personally, with the message then being passed on to the Home Secretary and the Americans.
This is politically stupid for a number of reasons that come to mind.
First, it makes Cameron look as if he was doing this simply to curry favour with the American administration, without any clear prompting from them; in other words, it gives the Americans plausible deniability. When Tony Blair was being accused of being "Bush's poodle", there was at least complicit agreement from the Bush administration that he was acting on their instruction. Over the Miranda affair, Obama's administration can hold their hands up and say that Cameron was doing it for his own reasons (such as his previous "War On Porn"), beyond US influence. In other words, that Cameron was acting "rogue", giving the likes of Vladimir Putin more excuse to hurl the accusation of hypocrisy at the UK when they accuse Putin of acting like a dictator of a police state when he targets political trouble-makers.
Secondly, the police were using anti-terror laws that preceded the "War On Terror". Lord Falconer, who introduced the law that the police used to detain Miranda, states that it was never meant to have been used in such a broad way, as a catch-all that included journalists or anyone else who is clearly not linked to terrorism. The law was introduced in 2000, specifically in relation to the threat of Irish Republican terrorism at the time. While the Home Secretary and the police try to make a square peg fit into a round hole, it adds weight to the accusation of blatant political intimidation, and that the use of this law in this case was potentially illegal, and could result in a lengthy legal battle between "The Guardian" and the government.
Thirdly, this precedent seems like an effective declaration of war by Cameron against certain sections of the media, using the law and the police as his weapons. Regardless of the truth, the perception will remain with "The Guardian" and other media outlets like it, that they are considered legitimate targets of political intimidation. The Miranda affair represents a sinking to a new low for freedom of the liberal media.
The question remains: what was Cameron thinking? Or was it, like many other of his decisions, an ill-thought-out, spur-of-the-moment thing? If it was an impulsive decision, it tells you much about the chaotic and dysfunctional way that the government of the UK is run. The government's Universal Benefit scheme, the responsibility of Iain Duncan Smith, is similarly shambolic in its thinking and organisation.
Some pundits on the right may be praising the government for the start of a "recovery", but that so-called recovery is not due to the thinking of competent, clear-headed ministerial insight. The "recovery" is based on simply repeating the same errors that the previous government committed, albeit now with a much more unsustainable and economically-disastrous model. Living standards have decreased significantly, working conditions and the structure of the labour market have deteriorated considerably, yet house prices are being inflated once again. In other words, the gap than existed before between incomes and house prices (and caused the last crash) is now getting even wider.
What do the government expect the end result will be? It is economic insanity.
The government is "ran" by David Cameron only in a very loose sense of the word: he rarely seems to take his responsibilities seriously or has any real ideas of his own, but is merely a good "method actor" who knows how to look serious and "statesman-like" in front of the camera, knows how to play the infantile and abusive points-scoring game of Westminster politics at the dispatch box once a week, and knows how to look earnest and "caring" when touring the country.
The ideological "revolution" that is being played out across the country is mostly channeled through the Treasury, Education, Health and Welfare parts of the government: Osborne, Gove, and IDS are the main antagonists in this story, with Theresa May enjoying her part as the legal enforcer of the "revolution". Cameron simply gives these ministers the space they need to carry out their work, and acts as the mouthpiece of their combined actions.
Cameron's carefree attitude to his job has meant he has presided over one of the most obviously-corrupt British governments in living memory. From what can be seen, Cameron and his allies simply do not accept that "corruption" exists. To them, "corruption" is what happens in poor countries. Because Britain is "rich", it means it cannot be corrupt; and the same goes for its government. But in the UK, "corruption" is simply a luxury good.
The evidence has been mounting since the Conservatives took office: the government's many links to Murdoch and his media empire; the conflicts of interests between the Conservative party and the "public service companies" like Serco and G4S; the appointment of political aides according to familiarity (like Boris Johnson's brother, for example); the vast influence that lobbyists have over the decision-making process; the list goes on.
That doesn't even mention the systemic failures of the political system at large, such the abuse of privileges by ministers and those in the House Of Lords
Then there are the countless instances of abuse of power: when information has been distorted to suit the purposes of ministers; when criticism within a department has been savagely silenced or civil servants have been psychologically intimidated. And these are all accusations that have come out of only one department alone: that run by Iain Duncan Smith (he also of "Workfare" fame). Michael Gove has faced similar accusations.
But all this flies over the head of "Call Me Dave".
This is the latest event in a pattern of behaviour demonstrating that Cameron has a supremely casual attitude to his responsibilities; seems to have little understanding of the meaning of "corruption"; and with the Miranda detainment, supports the view that the rule of law and use of his position can be abused when it is politically convenient.
Cameron is hardly the first British PM to have overstepped his powers; Tony Blair's abuse of anti-terror laws led to the police and surveillance culture, whose resulting incompetence resulted in the death of another Brazilian, Jean Charles De Menezes. In that way, Cameron is following Blair's example, but with nowhere near as much acumen. While Blair may well be held indirectly responsible for creating the police culture that led to the death of De Menezes, he cannot be held directly to account for a series of chaotic police actions.
In the case of Miranda, the order for his detention seems to have come directly from Cameron personally, with the message then being passed on to the Home Secretary and the Americans.
This is politically stupid for a number of reasons that come to mind.
First, it makes Cameron look as if he was doing this simply to curry favour with the American administration, without any clear prompting from them; in other words, it gives the Americans plausible deniability. When Tony Blair was being accused of being "Bush's poodle", there was at least complicit agreement from the Bush administration that he was acting on their instruction. Over the Miranda affair, Obama's administration can hold their hands up and say that Cameron was doing it for his own reasons (such as his previous "War On Porn"), beyond US influence. In other words, that Cameron was acting "rogue", giving the likes of Vladimir Putin more excuse to hurl the accusation of hypocrisy at the UK when they accuse Putin of acting like a dictator of a police state when he targets political trouble-makers.
Secondly, the police were using anti-terror laws that preceded the "War On Terror". Lord Falconer, who introduced the law that the police used to detain Miranda, states that it was never meant to have been used in such a broad way, as a catch-all that included journalists or anyone else who is clearly not linked to terrorism. The law was introduced in 2000, specifically in relation to the threat of Irish Republican terrorism at the time. While the Home Secretary and the police try to make a square peg fit into a round hole, it adds weight to the accusation of blatant political intimidation, and that the use of this law in this case was potentially illegal, and could result in a lengthy legal battle between "The Guardian" and the government.
Thirdly, this precedent seems like an effective declaration of war by Cameron against certain sections of the media, using the law and the police as his weapons. Regardless of the truth, the perception will remain with "The Guardian" and other media outlets like it, that they are considered legitimate targets of political intimidation. The Miranda affair represents a sinking to a new low for freedom of the liberal media.
The question remains: what was Cameron thinking? Or was it, like many other of his decisions, an ill-thought-out, spur-of-the-moment thing? If it was an impulsive decision, it tells you much about the chaotic and dysfunctional way that the government of the UK is run. The government's Universal Benefit scheme, the responsibility of Iain Duncan Smith, is similarly shambolic in its thinking and organisation.
Some pundits on the right may be praising the government for the start of a "recovery", but that so-called recovery is not due to the thinking of competent, clear-headed ministerial insight. The "recovery" is based on simply repeating the same errors that the previous government committed, albeit now with a much more unsustainable and economically-disastrous model. Living standards have decreased significantly, working conditions and the structure of the labour market have deteriorated considerably, yet house prices are being inflated once again. In other words, the gap than existed before between incomes and house prices (and caused the last crash) is now getting even wider.
What do the government expect the end result will be? It is economic insanity.
The government is "ran" by David Cameron only in a very loose sense of the word: he rarely seems to take his responsibilities seriously or has any real ideas of his own, but is merely a good "method actor" who knows how to look serious and "statesman-like" in front of the camera, knows how to play the infantile and abusive points-scoring game of Westminster politics at the dispatch box once a week, and knows how to look earnest and "caring" when touring the country.
The ideological "revolution" that is being played out across the country is mostly channeled through the Treasury, Education, Health and Welfare parts of the government: Osborne, Gove, and IDS are the main antagonists in this story, with Theresa May enjoying her part as the legal enforcer of the "revolution". Cameron simply gives these ministers the space they need to carry out their work, and acts as the mouthpiece of their combined actions.
Cameron's carefree attitude to his job has meant he has presided over one of the most obviously-corrupt British governments in living memory. From what can be seen, Cameron and his allies simply do not accept that "corruption" exists. To them, "corruption" is what happens in poor countries. Because Britain is "rich", it means it cannot be corrupt; and the same goes for its government. But in the UK, "corruption" is simply a luxury good.
The evidence has been mounting since the Conservatives took office: the government's many links to Murdoch and his media empire; the conflicts of interests between the Conservative party and the "public service companies" like Serco and G4S; the appointment of political aides according to familiarity (like Boris Johnson's brother, for example); the vast influence that lobbyists have over the decision-making process; the list goes on.
That doesn't even mention the systemic failures of the political system at large, such the abuse of privileges by ministers and those in the House Of Lords
Then there are the countless instances of abuse of power: when information has been distorted to suit the purposes of ministers; when criticism within a department has been savagely silenced or civil servants have been psychologically intimidated. And these are all accusations that have come out of only one department alone: that run by Iain Duncan Smith (he also of "Workfare" fame). Michael Gove has faced similar accusations.
But all this flies over the head of "Call Me Dave".
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Psychopathy, religion, and the hunter-gatherer culture
In my previous article I wrote about the links between the ancient hunter-gatherer cultures and the economics of Capitalism, and how psychopaths are hard-wired to thrive the most in these two environments. While I gave some examples of hunter-gatherer societies from history, I neglected to mention how two ancient nomadic (and hunter-gatherer) societies from the Middle East have had a huge effect on creating two of the world's most influential monotheistic religions, and have a massive influence on the world to this day: the Jews and the Bedouin Arabs.
The origins of the Jews and the Arabs is from the desert. Indeed, they are both ethnic Semitic tribes (which makes the term "Arab anti-Semitism" a contradiction in terms, but that's another story).
Humanity's perennial survivors
Much of the Jewish identity stems from being the perennial "victim", from ancient times to the present day. From the Jewish exile to Egypt, to exodus with Moses; from persecution by the Babylonians to that of the Romans, Jews have been forced to spread into a huge diaspora across the civilised world. Through the Middle Ages, it was the Muslim Caliphates (and later, the Ottoman Turks) that were most tolerant of the Jews, while they escaped intermittent persecution and pogroms throughout most of Christendom.
The European paranoia of the Jews peaked in the late 19th and early 20th century, culminating in the holocaust. And also by this time, paranoia towards the Jews had bled into Muslim Arab psyche as well, with the resulting violence that had plagued Palestine and the Middle East since the Balfour agreement of the First World War.
So it is no surprise that the modern Jewish psyche is delicate and overly-defensive, especially Israeli Jews, whom a disproportionate number descend from (East European) Holocaust survivors.
The nomadic nature of Jews that was habitual from ancient times became enforced later, in order to escape bouts of persecution. Jews by temperament are people of the desert. Their God ("El" or "Eloah") found in the Talmud is a perennial tester of his followers; punishing them for slights and stretching their patience and beliefs to the limit.
The God of the Old Testament in Christianity, as with that found in the Talmud and the Koran, is not a pleasant and forgiving master. If he was a person in real life, could he even be called a potential psychopath? From The Fall Of Man after Genesis and the role of woman in original sin, this is a God who seems intent on setting man and woman against each other from the start, creating a patriarchal society, as well as ensuring that self-inquiry and knowledge are suppressed where possible.
With a "teacher" like this, coupled with a "victim complex" and a nomadic, hunter-gatherer psychology, it would not be surprising if such a society created a disproportionately-high number of psychopaths; due to the cultural environment, natural selection (as I've said before) and the enforced need for social adaptation. The stereotype of Jews being some of the most successful Capitalists may then have some grain of truth in it, when considered in this light.
While not wanting to indulge any conspiracy theorists about the links between Jews and Capitalism, Jews becoming successful tradespeople and merchants across Europe and the Middle East in the Middle Ages seems like an example of simply learning social adaptation. The more Jews have been persecuted and forced into a semi-nomadic existence, the smarter and more adaptable they have been forced to become; such an environment not only benefits psychopaths, but makes them more likely to appear in that population as an evolutionary survival technique.
So by the time of the end of the Second World War, Palestinian Jews were utterly unapologetic about the ruthless manner of creating the state of Israel on the back of the Holocaust, and to the detriment to the Palestinian Arabs. To these Jews, Israel was their ultimate form of guaranteeing their survival, with the backing of the USA and its Jewish lobby. The wars that Israel has fought since then are a direct result of the collective psychology of Israel's Jewish population. When you continually feel you are the "victim" (and therefore, like a psychopath, that nothing is ever your fault), war against your enemies is the logical expression of your identity; and you need little reason to start one.
Capitalists Chosen by God
Like the Jews, the Bedouin Arabs are desert people by nature, nomadic and hunter-gatherers. Before Mohammed and the founding of Islam, they knew little of the world outside Arabia. Islam changed all that, and gave them an impetus to channel their nomadic way of life into a divine purpose. The result of that was the fastest expansion of an "empire" in recorded history; the nearest comparison is the Mongol Empire, which was another society of nomadic hunter-gatherers that spread across Eurasia in a matter of decades.
In the early centuries of Islam, part of the reason for its rapid spread was using the same methods later used by the Mongols: any "infidel" societies it encountered were offered the simple choice of submission (no pun intended!) to their rule, conversion or death. This meant that in those early centuries, a significant proportion of those under Muslim Arab rule were non-Muslims (and Jews) who lived in a tolerant and open social environment (in some ways similar to that of the Venetian Republic) that encouraged innovation and trade. The Caliphate of Cordoba is an example of this. In other words, while the Jews had to adapt to become innovative and nomadic Capitalists to survive, the Arabs had to accept a tolerant social structure to maintain power over their vast empire. The benefit of this was a culture of innovation, as the later Mongols ruled their vast empire along similar lines.
The Arabs therefore became Capitalists almost by default (due to the need for an open social environment), while the Jews became successful Capitalists for survival. Once they had a vast empire, their nomadic nature had to adapt as they would not have had the natural social skills for controlling the many civic societies they had conquered. Like the later Mongols, they had to incorporate some aspects of the local populations, diluting the "essence" of Arab culture into a hybrid. Islam became the one thing that the various populations across the Caliphates had in common, in spite of linguistic and ethnic differences.
What went wrong?
While the Arab Caliphates of the West were gradually eaten up by the burgeoning Spanish kingdoms, in the East the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols was a devastating blow, wiping out Islam's biggest and most sophisticated metropolis. Later, the Ottoman Turks (also originally nomadic hunters like the Arabs and the Mongols) swept down into the Middle East from Anatolia, meaning that the Arabs became second class citizens of a larger Ottoman Empire. Like the Jews, this experience gave them a reason for a "victim complex".
It was also during this time that the Arabs "re-discovered" their religion, such as the Wahabbi and the Salafi movement. In this way, being a "victim" of being ruled by "inferior" Ottoman Muslims, gave them the environmental factors necessary to create extremism. By the time of the First World War, their "victim complex" had become almost a "jihad" against all infidels; Christians and Jews regardless.
The Arabs used their temporary alliance with the British to gain independence from the Ottomans, only for most of the Arabs to be betrayed by the Europeans in the Sykes-Picot Treaty that divided up all of the Middle East, barring the rump of the peninsula. In this situation of perceived betrayal and trauma, it is not surprising that the religious extremists won the battle for control of the geographical and psychological heart of Islam.
It was from this traumatic birth in the modern age that the current mindset of the Arabs stems from. The discovery of oil soon after this gave the likes of Saudi Arabia even more reason to feel that had been blessed by Allah after all their centuries of perceived persecution. The Saudis and other Gulf Arabs, the nomadic hunter-gatherers of the desert and second-rate citizens in their own land for centuries, soon became the rich, all-consuming Capitalists of the present day; albeit, with their extremist religion giving them an even greater sense of righteousness. Those of the peninsula must be the chosen ones; the infidels were there to be exploited or worse - for historical revenge, or because they simply deserved it, it didn't matter.
This is much of the basis of the psychopathy of Islamic Fundamentalism.
The origins of the Jews and the Arabs is from the desert. Indeed, they are both ethnic Semitic tribes (which makes the term "Arab anti-Semitism" a contradiction in terms, but that's another story).
Humanity's perennial survivors
Much of the Jewish identity stems from being the perennial "victim", from ancient times to the present day. From the Jewish exile to Egypt, to exodus with Moses; from persecution by the Babylonians to that of the Romans, Jews have been forced to spread into a huge diaspora across the civilised world. Through the Middle Ages, it was the Muslim Caliphates (and later, the Ottoman Turks) that were most tolerant of the Jews, while they escaped intermittent persecution and pogroms throughout most of Christendom.
The European paranoia of the Jews peaked in the late 19th and early 20th century, culminating in the holocaust. And also by this time, paranoia towards the Jews had bled into Muslim Arab psyche as well, with the resulting violence that had plagued Palestine and the Middle East since the Balfour agreement of the First World War.
So it is no surprise that the modern Jewish psyche is delicate and overly-defensive, especially Israeli Jews, whom a disproportionate number descend from (East European) Holocaust survivors.
The nomadic nature of Jews that was habitual from ancient times became enforced later, in order to escape bouts of persecution. Jews by temperament are people of the desert. Their God ("El" or "Eloah") found in the Talmud is a perennial tester of his followers; punishing them for slights and stretching their patience and beliefs to the limit.
The God of the Old Testament in Christianity, as with that found in the Talmud and the Koran, is not a pleasant and forgiving master. If he was a person in real life, could he even be called a potential psychopath? From The Fall Of Man after Genesis and the role of woman in original sin, this is a God who seems intent on setting man and woman against each other from the start, creating a patriarchal society, as well as ensuring that self-inquiry and knowledge are suppressed where possible.
With a "teacher" like this, coupled with a "victim complex" and a nomadic, hunter-gatherer psychology, it would not be surprising if such a society created a disproportionately-high number of psychopaths; due to the cultural environment, natural selection (as I've said before) and the enforced need for social adaptation. The stereotype of Jews being some of the most successful Capitalists may then have some grain of truth in it, when considered in this light.
While not wanting to indulge any conspiracy theorists about the links between Jews and Capitalism, Jews becoming successful tradespeople and merchants across Europe and the Middle East in the Middle Ages seems like an example of simply learning social adaptation. The more Jews have been persecuted and forced into a semi-nomadic existence, the smarter and more adaptable they have been forced to become; such an environment not only benefits psychopaths, but makes them more likely to appear in that population as an evolutionary survival technique.
So by the time of the end of the Second World War, Palestinian Jews were utterly unapologetic about the ruthless manner of creating the state of Israel on the back of the Holocaust, and to the detriment to the Palestinian Arabs. To these Jews, Israel was their ultimate form of guaranteeing their survival, with the backing of the USA and its Jewish lobby. The wars that Israel has fought since then are a direct result of the collective psychology of Israel's Jewish population. When you continually feel you are the "victim" (and therefore, like a psychopath, that nothing is ever your fault), war against your enemies is the logical expression of your identity; and you need little reason to start one.
Capitalists Chosen by God
Like the Jews, the Bedouin Arabs are desert people by nature, nomadic and hunter-gatherers. Before Mohammed and the founding of Islam, they knew little of the world outside Arabia. Islam changed all that, and gave them an impetus to channel their nomadic way of life into a divine purpose. The result of that was the fastest expansion of an "empire" in recorded history; the nearest comparison is the Mongol Empire, which was another society of nomadic hunter-gatherers that spread across Eurasia in a matter of decades.
In the early centuries of Islam, part of the reason for its rapid spread was using the same methods later used by the Mongols: any "infidel" societies it encountered were offered the simple choice of submission (no pun intended!) to their rule, conversion or death. This meant that in those early centuries, a significant proportion of those under Muslim Arab rule were non-Muslims (and Jews) who lived in a tolerant and open social environment (in some ways similar to that of the Venetian Republic) that encouraged innovation and trade. The Caliphate of Cordoba is an example of this. In other words, while the Jews had to adapt to become innovative and nomadic Capitalists to survive, the Arabs had to accept a tolerant social structure to maintain power over their vast empire. The benefit of this was a culture of innovation, as the later Mongols ruled their vast empire along similar lines.
The Arabs therefore became Capitalists almost by default (due to the need for an open social environment), while the Jews became successful Capitalists for survival. Once they had a vast empire, their nomadic nature had to adapt as they would not have had the natural social skills for controlling the many civic societies they had conquered. Like the later Mongols, they had to incorporate some aspects of the local populations, diluting the "essence" of Arab culture into a hybrid. Islam became the one thing that the various populations across the Caliphates had in common, in spite of linguistic and ethnic differences.
What went wrong?
While the Arab Caliphates of the West were gradually eaten up by the burgeoning Spanish kingdoms, in the East the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols was a devastating blow, wiping out Islam's biggest and most sophisticated metropolis. Later, the Ottoman Turks (also originally nomadic hunters like the Arabs and the Mongols) swept down into the Middle East from Anatolia, meaning that the Arabs became second class citizens of a larger Ottoman Empire. Like the Jews, this experience gave them a reason for a "victim complex".
It was also during this time that the Arabs "re-discovered" their religion, such as the Wahabbi and the Salafi movement. In this way, being a "victim" of being ruled by "inferior" Ottoman Muslims, gave them the environmental factors necessary to create extremism. By the time of the First World War, their "victim complex" had become almost a "jihad" against all infidels; Christians and Jews regardless.
The Arabs used their temporary alliance with the British to gain independence from the Ottomans, only for most of the Arabs to be betrayed by the Europeans in the Sykes-Picot Treaty that divided up all of the Middle East, barring the rump of the peninsula. In this situation of perceived betrayal and trauma, it is not surprising that the religious extremists won the battle for control of the geographical and psychological heart of Islam.
It was from this traumatic birth in the modern age that the current mindset of the Arabs stems from. The discovery of oil soon after this gave the likes of Saudi Arabia even more reason to feel that had been blessed by Allah after all their centuries of perceived persecution. The Saudis and other Gulf Arabs, the nomadic hunter-gatherers of the desert and second-rate citizens in their own land for centuries, soon became the rich, all-consuming Capitalists of the present day; albeit, with their extremist religion giving them an even greater sense of righteousness. Those of the peninsula must be the chosen ones; the infidels were there to be exploited or worse - for historical revenge, or because they simply deserved it, it didn't matter.
This is much of the basis of the psychopathy of Islamic Fundamentalism.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Psychopathy, Capitalism and evolution: the triumph of the hunter instinct
I've written before about the main aspects of psychopathy, and its effects on the human condition. As a psychological syndrome, psychopathy occurs due to a combination of hereditary and environmental factors, and affects a small percentage of the population.
These are the bare facts, but a more exact calculation of the extent of psychopathy in the general population is near impossible, so even these facts are disputable. The vast majority of known (i.e. medically diagnosed) psychopaths are convicted criminals, since diagnosis usually only possible after a person has been convicted of a crime, and shows some signs of psychopathic "behaviour". As no "self-aware" but formally non-diagnosed psychopath would ever voluntary submit himself to clinical testing, this is what makes it so difficult to measure psychopathy's extent across humanity.
Not only is there the problem of "psychopaths in hiding"; there is also the problem that many psychopaths are able to successfully mask their "true nature" from the rest of society. Furthermore, psychopathy is tested by a scale - the generally-used "Hare Checklist" is the most reliable method to date; it is more a question to what extent a person is psychopathic, not whether they are or are not.
Hunters versus farmers
In this way, psychopathy has probably existed in humanity since at least prehistoric times. Psychopaths are humanity's "predators", so were therefore likely to have prospered in the nomadic hunter-gatherer societies that existed before farming and agriculture brought about settlements and "civilisation" in the formal sense - city life. Not only that, but psychopaths are by nature somewhat restless and always looking for new challenges, so would have felt at home in the "adventure" of nomadic hunter-gatherer society.
Thinking back to a concrete example, the wars between the ancient Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire can be called "clash of civilisations" - albeit, where Rome was a city-dwelling civilisation, and the ancient Germans were more faithful to the "hunter-gatherer" society that more closely aligns with the traits of a psychopath. The tribe of Atilla the Hun also fit into the nomad, hunter-gatherer society, as did the migrating Turkic tribes just over a thousand years ago, and most famously, that of Genghis Khan and his Mongol successors. For the Huns, the Turks and the Mongols, the horse was an integral part of their society, symbolising their nomadic instincts, even if their cultures became integrated into those absorbed into their larger empires. The rituals of the hunt and the ethic of total warfare (that the Mongols were most famous for) was what made these three tribes equally feared and respected by their more "civilised" rivals. Before the "Pax Americana" of the modern day, its closest equivalent of a "world empire" was the "Pax Mongolica", which spread across most of Eurasia like a human plague, decimating any populations that resisted.
But for all its seemingly-barbaric (psychopathic?) flaws, the "Pax Mongolica" was an extremely efficient political structure; in ways that a modern-day multinational company would probably recognise. In spite of its enormous scope, communications across the Eurasian landmass became more efficient than they had ever been until the modern era. Peace and trade flourished within the empire itself. The "empire" was divided up into spheres of influence, and ruled accordingly, in much the same way that a modern multinational has regional branches. In other words, the "Pax Mongolica" was brutally-efficient: it was unflinchingly brutal when it was necessary to be; but it was also very efficient at leadership and organisation.
The psychopath as Capitalist predator
The (psychopathic) example of the "Pax Mongolica" is a demonstration of medieval power politics. But the success of the "hunter-gatherer" model of the Mongols was unusual compared to most other medieval societies, which were almost always ruled as agriculture-based societies ruled through a system of serfdom; a poor environment for psychopaths. Unless a psychopath found a niche to use his talents or a way to gain access to power (e.g. through military glory or ecclesiastical advancement), he was doomed to a (short) life of frustration. Most medieval societies tended to be socially and economically static, where movement (and therefore trade and socio-economic independence and entrepreneurial thought) was very difficult.
These deeply fixed and hierarchical societies were socially-geared to suppress the environmental factors that are understood to encourage psychopathy today. Instead, those at the apex of the social hierarchy may well have tended more towards aspects of psychopathic behaviour than otherwise due to its dysfunctional and self-enclosed nature. A modern-day comparison would be the regime of North Korea.
As psychopaths are hard-wired with all the attributes that are an advantage in hunting and war-like societies, this also gives them some added social attributes in regard to the opposite sex. Psychopathy may be considered more of a genetic aberration, but natural selection and the role in society of the hunter-Capitalist (predator) therefore makes psychopathy more likely to spread over generations. This explains the potentially massive under-measuring of the true scale of the psychopathic condition in society. It also explains a lot about why globalisation works the way it does.
When people talk about "Social Darwinism", the reality is that this model of Capitalism as envisaged by modern-day Neo-liberals is ideally-suited for psychopaths. In an almost literal dog-eat-dog society, because psychopaths are amoral, sexually-promiscuous, adaptable, self-confident and guiltless, they are capable of almost anything; unfortunately, this also means whenever psychopaths gain positions of power, the result is chaos for everyone else.
Then again, there are some cultures for which psychopathy becomes almost a prerequisite for survival.
These are the bare facts, but a more exact calculation of the extent of psychopathy in the general population is near impossible, so even these facts are disputable. The vast majority of known (i.e. medically diagnosed) psychopaths are convicted criminals, since diagnosis usually only possible after a person has been convicted of a crime, and shows some signs of psychopathic "behaviour". As no "self-aware" but formally non-diagnosed psychopath would ever voluntary submit himself to clinical testing, this is what makes it so difficult to measure psychopathy's extent across humanity.
Not only is there the problem of "psychopaths in hiding"; there is also the problem that many psychopaths are able to successfully mask their "true nature" from the rest of society. Furthermore, psychopathy is tested by a scale - the generally-used "Hare Checklist" is the most reliable method to date; it is more a question to what extent a person is psychopathic, not whether they are or are not.
Hunters versus farmers
In this way, psychopathy has probably existed in humanity since at least prehistoric times. Psychopaths are humanity's "predators", so were therefore likely to have prospered in the nomadic hunter-gatherer societies that existed before farming and agriculture brought about settlements and "civilisation" in the formal sense - city life. Not only that, but psychopaths are by nature somewhat restless and always looking for new challenges, so would have felt at home in the "adventure" of nomadic hunter-gatherer society.
Thinking back to a concrete example, the wars between the ancient Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire can be called "clash of civilisations" - albeit, where Rome was a city-dwelling civilisation, and the ancient Germans were more faithful to the "hunter-gatherer" society that more closely aligns with the traits of a psychopath. The tribe of Atilla the Hun also fit into the nomad, hunter-gatherer society, as did the migrating Turkic tribes just over a thousand years ago, and most famously, that of Genghis Khan and his Mongol successors. For the Huns, the Turks and the Mongols, the horse was an integral part of their society, symbolising their nomadic instincts, even if their cultures became integrated into those absorbed into their larger empires. The rituals of the hunt and the ethic of total warfare (that the Mongols were most famous for) was what made these three tribes equally feared and respected by their more "civilised" rivals. Before the "Pax Americana" of the modern day, its closest equivalent of a "world empire" was the "Pax Mongolica", which spread across most of Eurasia like a human plague, decimating any populations that resisted.
But for all its seemingly-barbaric (psychopathic?) flaws, the "Pax Mongolica" was an extremely efficient political structure; in ways that a modern-day multinational company would probably recognise. In spite of its enormous scope, communications across the Eurasian landmass became more efficient than they had ever been until the modern era. Peace and trade flourished within the empire itself. The "empire" was divided up into spheres of influence, and ruled accordingly, in much the same way that a modern multinational has regional branches. In other words, the "Pax Mongolica" was brutally-efficient: it was unflinchingly brutal when it was necessary to be; but it was also very efficient at leadership and organisation.
The psychopath as Capitalist predator
The (psychopathic) example of the "Pax Mongolica" is a demonstration of medieval power politics. But the success of the "hunter-gatherer" model of the Mongols was unusual compared to most other medieval societies, which were almost always ruled as agriculture-based societies ruled through a system of serfdom; a poor environment for psychopaths. Unless a psychopath found a niche to use his talents or a way to gain access to power (e.g. through military glory or ecclesiastical advancement), he was doomed to a (short) life of frustration. Most medieval societies tended to be socially and economically static, where movement (and therefore trade and socio-economic independence and entrepreneurial thought) was very difficult.
These deeply fixed and hierarchical societies were socially-geared to suppress the environmental factors that are understood to encourage psychopathy today. Instead, those at the apex of the social hierarchy may well have tended more towards aspects of psychopathic behaviour than otherwise due to its dysfunctional and self-enclosed nature. A modern-day comparison would be the regime of North Korea.
Capitalism in its rudimentary form began to flourish in the
mercantile empire of Venice, which reached its zenith at around the same time
as the Mongols. What
Capitalism shares with the mentality of the hunter-gatherer is the instinct for
self-advancement and self-preservation, and a natural curiosity for the next
challenge or opportunity. Both Capitalism and the hunter-gather society
are inherently anarchic, and reward behaviour that would elsewhere be seen as
cold-blooded and selfish, which fits the psychology of the psychopath. The
brutal efficiency of the Mongol Empire also had the upside that it served as a
conduit for Far Eastern innovations and trade to Europe, and vice versa. So the
Capitalist embryo that was formed from the likes of the mercantile Venetian
Republic, also provided the ideal environment for psychopaths to flourish.
I've
spoken before about the links between psychopathy and the mindset of Capitalism. But it is also evident that many of the aspects of the renaissance were at least an indirect result of factors such as trade, exchanging ideas, and independent thought and creativity. And psychopaths in such a social situation are hard-wired to excel, having all the natural attributes necessary. In other words, while in hunter-gatherer societies, psychopaths would become the natural leaders, in proto-Capitalist societies like the Venetian Republic and its neighbours, psychopaths would have the natural attributes to become the most successful entrepreneurs and merchants. In other words, Capitalism replaced the function of hunting in human society, allowing psychopaths to successfully adapt to the situation.
As psychopaths are hard-wired with all the attributes that are an advantage in hunting and war-like societies, this also gives them some added social attributes in regard to the opposite sex. Psychopathy may be considered more of a genetic aberration, but natural selection and the role in society of the hunter-Capitalist (predator) therefore makes psychopathy more likely to spread over generations. This explains the potentially massive under-measuring of the true scale of the psychopathic condition in society. It also explains a lot about why globalisation works the way it does.
When people talk about "Social Darwinism", the reality is that this model of Capitalism as envisaged by modern-day Neo-liberals is ideally-suited for psychopaths. In an almost literal dog-eat-dog society, because psychopaths are amoral, sexually-promiscuous, adaptable, self-confident and guiltless, they are capable of almost anything; unfortunately, this also means whenever psychopaths gain positions of power, the result is chaos for everyone else.
Then again, there are some cultures for which psychopathy becomes almost a prerequisite for survival.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
UKIP, Godfrey Bloom and racism: how UKIP speak the language of the man on the street
The British political establishment is often accused of being "out of touch", Cameron's Conservatives most of all. The recent comments by UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom criticising foreign aid to "Bongo Bongo Land", put that issue into sharp focus.
What's most telling about the reaction to Bloom's comments is that of the political establishment, who quickly jumped on the racism bandwagon. This reaction defines the established view that racism is defined as any comment that is derogatory towards someone (or some place) that is non-white. I make no judgement either way on the "Bongo Bongo Land" issue; what interests me is how Bloom's comments were able to cut a sharp cleft on an "Us and Them" issue - that of "politically-correct language".
Whether it was intentional or not, Bloom's comments have put UKIP back again in the limelight, after a period of relative quiet following the aftermath of the May local elections. This showed in the dip in UKIP's vote in the polls, though this was always bound to happen when a "new" party like UKIP falls out of the electoral radar outside of campaigning seasons. As UKIP are a "party of protest" (according to the political establishment), they are always likely to have higher ratings when Nigel Farage and his collleagues have the chance to shine in the media circus, when elections are due. As of this weekend, after falling to just above ten per cent in the polls a few weeks ago, they are now reaching back up to their high-water mark of the high teens.Do Bloom's comments have anything to do with that?
Going back to the "racism" accusation, Bloom has shrugged off this saying that he is merely saying things that are normal for his age (he's in his mid-sixties). What is also unsaid is that Bloom's language more closely reflects that of the urban and rural working-class. Though it is an uncomfortable truth for the metropolitan, liberal-minded middle classes, many people in the UK are racist, at least in a casual way. But this is true in many countries.
The rise of "political correctness" in the UK came around twenty years ago, especially after the mistreatment and abuse people from ethnic minorities (by the police, for example). This led to a more careful consideration of how language can be abused as a psychological weapon against those who are "different". The result of this was what we call "political correctness".
From this, the political establishment began its cultural "modernisation": Tony Blair's "New Labour" was the best example of that put into practice, which Cameron forced the Conservatives to finally follow. But this still left the urban and rural working classes behind in the process, and complacently treated by their traditional parties (usually Labour and Conservatives respectively).
The rise of immigration could only be ignored by the political establishment for so long; the financial crisis was the tipping-point. Immigration can be tolerated by working class as long as it doesn't negatively affect them. But the financial crisis showed that immigration did have an effect on "native" working class unemployment when there was a surplus of unskilled workers; Eastern European immigration and the UK's membership of the EU therefore became a huge issue to the working class, because they could see the physical effects on the street - and in their own unemployment.
The issue of foreign aid to corrupt developing countries (largely in Africa) is therefore biting to the (working class) man on the street because he feels that money is being wasted abroad that could be spent on him at home. Godfrey Bloom's remarks, spoken in a way that he can understand and relate to, therefore hit home. Ignored by the "political correctness" of the establishment, who seem out of touch in their language and concerns compared to the working class, UKIP are the only party who seem to speak the language of the street.
I talked before about "cleft" issues: these are points that UKIP can clearly mark its identity as different from the political establishment: mainly immigration (anti), the EU (anti), and the role of the state (anti). UKIP have been able to identify and take advantage of the now-atrophied "social democratic" political dialectic that the "big three" have all accepted. Even on austerity, Labour have grown to accept much of the Coalition's tough stance, to the detriment of their own political clarity and credibility. This is where UKIP's role in the political landscape is clear: to play their part in forging a new political future, come what may.
Calculating Westminster influence from the polls
I've said before that UKIP's influence is underestimated by the "big three" parties at their peril. UKIP are here to stay: the four-party system is a reality now.
When translating UKIP's poll share (in the last few months, the average has been in the mid-teens), the polling companies use formulas that demonstrate that UKIP has very little chance of gaining a seat in Westminster. If anything, this shows how out-of-date their methods are, as much as the political establishment is out-of-date with its methods of dealing with fourth parties.
UKIP are following in the steps of the LibDems in using local government as a way to develop foundations that can be transformed into seats in Westminster, as I've alluded to before. This is why using any conventional formula to calculate seats is almost meaningless, because it fails to account for local idiosyncrasies that can be exploited by the FPTP system. Now that UKIP have real representation in the East and South-east of England, it's not too far-fetched to think that at least a few of the local (district) councils would become UKIP seats in Westminster in 2015.
Adding to that, is Nigel Farage's apt comment that UKIP are becoming the "seaside party": that many old English seaside towns (e.g. Margate, Hastings, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth) are becoming dumping-grounds for the unemployed and sinks of social deprivation; in other words, filled with precisely the kind of people who would feel most at home with UKIP's message.
Lastly, is Labour's "soft underbelly": the many run-down parts of the North of England that have never voted anything but Labour, but now are feeling taken for granted by the Labour machine. In one part of the North-east, UKIP have already become the official opposition.
So it's better not to trust these clever "election calculators" that appear, showing UKIP with 20% in the polls, but with no seats in Westminster. This is just part of the scare tactics, because deep down, the establishment is terrified.
What's most telling about the reaction to Bloom's comments is that of the political establishment, who quickly jumped on the racism bandwagon. This reaction defines the established view that racism is defined as any comment that is derogatory towards someone (or some place) that is non-white. I make no judgement either way on the "Bongo Bongo Land" issue; what interests me is how Bloom's comments were able to cut a sharp cleft on an "Us and Them" issue - that of "politically-correct language".
Whether it was intentional or not, Bloom's comments have put UKIP back again in the limelight, after a period of relative quiet following the aftermath of the May local elections. This showed in the dip in UKIP's vote in the polls, though this was always bound to happen when a "new" party like UKIP falls out of the electoral radar outside of campaigning seasons. As UKIP are a "party of protest" (according to the political establishment), they are always likely to have higher ratings when Nigel Farage and his collleagues have the chance to shine in the media circus, when elections are due. As of this weekend, after falling to just above ten per cent in the polls a few weeks ago, they are now reaching back up to their high-water mark of the high teens.Do Bloom's comments have anything to do with that?
Going back to the "racism" accusation, Bloom has shrugged off this saying that he is merely saying things that are normal for his age (he's in his mid-sixties). What is also unsaid is that Bloom's language more closely reflects that of the urban and rural working-class. Though it is an uncomfortable truth for the metropolitan, liberal-minded middle classes, many people in the UK are racist, at least in a casual way. But this is true in many countries.
The rise of "political correctness" in the UK came around twenty years ago, especially after the mistreatment and abuse people from ethnic minorities (by the police, for example). This led to a more careful consideration of how language can be abused as a psychological weapon against those who are "different". The result of this was what we call "political correctness".
From this, the political establishment began its cultural "modernisation": Tony Blair's "New Labour" was the best example of that put into practice, which Cameron forced the Conservatives to finally follow. But this still left the urban and rural working classes behind in the process, and complacently treated by their traditional parties (usually Labour and Conservatives respectively).
The rise of immigration could only be ignored by the political establishment for so long; the financial crisis was the tipping-point. Immigration can be tolerated by working class as long as it doesn't negatively affect them. But the financial crisis showed that immigration did have an effect on "native" working class unemployment when there was a surplus of unskilled workers; Eastern European immigration and the UK's membership of the EU therefore became a huge issue to the working class, because they could see the physical effects on the street - and in their own unemployment.
The issue of foreign aid to corrupt developing countries (largely in Africa) is therefore biting to the (working class) man on the street because he feels that money is being wasted abroad that could be spent on him at home. Godfrey Bloom's remarks, spoken in a way that he can understand and relate to, therefore hit home. Ignored by the "political correctness" of the establishment, who seem out of touch in their language and concerns compared to the working class, UKIP are the only party who seem to speak the language of the street.
I talked before about "cleft" issues: these are points that UKIP can clearly mark its identity as different from the political establishment: mainly immigration (anti), the EU (anti), and the role of the state (anti). UKIP have been able to identify and take advantage of the now-atrophied "social democratic" political dialectic that the "big three" have all accepted. Even on austerity, Labour have grown to accept much of the Coalition's tough stance, to the detriment of their own political clarity and credibility. This is where UKIP's role in the political landscape is clear: to play their part in forging a new political future, come what may.
Calculating Westminster influence from the polls
I've said before that UKIP's influence is underestimated by the "big three" parties at their peril. UKIP are here to stay: the four-party system is a reality now.
When translating UKIP's poll share (in the last few months, the average has been in the mid-teens), the polling companies use formulas that demonstrate that UKIP has very little chance of gaining a seat in Westminster. If anything, this shows how out-of-date their methods are, as much as the political establishment is out-of-date with its methods of dealing with fourth parties.
UKIP are following in the steps of the LibDems in using local government as a way to develop foundations that can be transformed into seats in Westminster, as I've alluded to before. This is why using any conventional formula to calculate seats is almost meaningless, because it fails to account for local idiosyncrasies that can be exploited by the FPTP system. Now that UKIP have real representation in the East and South-east of England, it's not too far-fetched to think that at least a few of the local (district) councils would become UKIP seats in Westminster in 2015.
Adding to that, is Nigel Farage's apt comment that UKIP are becoming the "seaside party": that many old English seaside towns (e.g. Margate, Hastings, Blackpool, Great Yarmouth) are becoming dumping-grounds for the unemployed and sinks of social deprivation; in other words, filled with precisely the kind of people who would feel most at home with UKIP's message.
Lastly, is Labour's "soft underbelly": the many run-down parts of the North of England that have never voted anything but Labour, but now are feeling taken for granted by the Labour machine. In one part of the North-east, UKIP have already become the official opposition.
So it's better not to trust these clever "election calculators" that appear, showing UKIP with 20% in the polls, but with no seats in Westminster. This is just part of the scare tactics, because deep down, the establishment is terrified.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Zero-hours contracts and employee rights: Why the Coalition's dishonest austerity strategy is working
I wrote an article the other week about how a government's self-confidence can easily fool the electorate that its strategy is working, regardless of the facts.
An article by Owen Jones in "The Independent" reiterates the point I mentioned: that it's difficult for an opposition to have a coherent strategy when the government's strategy is about having a simple, dishonest and distracting message, and repeating it again and again. As Owen Jones says, the government's devastating and disorienting line against the opposition is:
"We’re clearing up Labour’s mess. Labour overspent and now we’re balancing the books. A national deficit is like a household budget. Welfare is out of control and lining the pockets of the skivers. The unemployed person or immigrant down the road is living off your hard-earned taxes. Labour is in the pocket of union barons".
This is politics at its most cynical and divisive, not to mention dishonest. The reality of the Coalition's strategy is very different, as Seamas Milne says here. Austerity Britain is really about:
"payday loans, food banks, the bedroom tax, G4S and... zero-hours contracts"
This is all part of the government's plan. The Conservatives' plan is nothing less than a revolution by stealth; to undo the social progress that was made through the "postwar consensus", and a final completion of the Thatcherite (Neo-liberal) economic vision. It is a vision of hell for many employees.
The systematic erosion of employee rights is part and parcel of that. Anecdotes about the reality of zero-hour contracts abound: about how it is creating a growing workforce of virtual slaves, on top of the culture of internships that has proliferated.
The Tories claim that unemployment is going down and that the economy is improving. Even if this claim was taken at face value, there is a very simple reason why that might be true: because employers are offering jobs at far worse conditions than before, and with the ever-increasing cost of living, the unemployed have little choice. This is especially true of young people. So employers are able to "create" four jobs on zero-hours contracts, for example, where one "real" job would have existed before. This is the basis of Britain's so-called "recovery". So companies are improving their books by creating a new type of working regime.
The article about zero-hours contracts also describes the type of working regime. It has been said that private companies operate like dictatorships; it is government regulation that forces them to abide by humane and fair working conditions, otherwise it is a matter of the employer's whim. With the Conservatives intent on throwing those "restrictive" regulations out of the window, it is clear that employees working on zero-hours contracts are working in companies that operate like miniature Fascist dictatorships: where an employee's hours from one week to the next depend on currying favour with the boss, and a wrong word can get your hours and pay reduced to zero (while still being "employed"), until you are back in the boss' good books. Employees therefore need to compete with each other to get the most hours, while the employer treats his employees like serfs.The employee's contract bans him from finding other part-time work elsewhere to boost his earnings, so the only option he has is unemployment (and then having to explain to the job centre why he voluntarily gave up work).
Lack of control is the key to fear. In "Austerity Britain", the rise of unpaid internships and the instability offered by zero-hours contracts are symbols of the government's attack on employees' rights. While the economy might be technically "improving", the figures say nothing about how the "recovery" is made possible: by destroying employees' rights. As always, when those at the top screw up, it's those at the bottom that take the hit. This is what can also be called "Corporate Socialism".
The financial crisis was seen by Neo-liberal supporters as a failure of government interference, rather than the true corruption of the market system created by globalisation, that gathers control in markets into huge cartels of multinationals, unaccountable to government. As this system creates a cartelisation of the world market on a macro level, it creates an incentive to make labour markets more and more flexible, and more and more uncertainty for employees. And creating uncertainty is the key to power.
The financial crisis therefore serves two useful purposes: as a way to instill fear and uncertainty (i.e. compliance) into the workforce; and as an opportunity to erode employee's rights.
The Neo-liberal model that the Coalition supports therefore has used the financial crisis as an opportunity to further extend the Neo-liberal "revolution". While the British economy may make some small recovery on paper, this hides the truth that the UK economy is massively weighted in favour of the financial and service sector in the South-east of England, as I've said before. The neo-liberal model is naturally weighted against all other parts of the country, as the various regional economies have never been able to fully adapt after the collapse of Empire fifty years ago. Parts of the north resemble parts of the former Soviet Union because some towns and cities (like in the USSR) specialised in one industry.
So while those responsible for the financial crisis - the corrupt financial institutions who created a credit time-bomb - remain unpunished, they pass the debt burden onto the taxpayer (via the government), who is then told that in this new regime, government cannot afford to do what it did before, and that employees must accept increasingly serf-like working conditions (that financially benefit those responsible for the financial crisis).
But this is ignored by many. As long as capitalism provides new forms of technology to pass the time between the destruction of their human rights, who cares?
An article by Owen Jones in "The Independent" reiterates the point I mentioned: that it's difficult for an opposition to have a coherent strategy when the government's strategy is about having a simple, dishonest and distracting message, and repeating it again and again. As Owen Jones says, the government's devastating and disorienting line against the opposition is:
"We’re clearing up Labour’s mess. Labour overspent and now we’re balancing the books. A national deficit is like a household budget. Welfare is out of control and lining the pockets of the skivers. The unemployed person or immigrant down the road is living off your hard-earned taxes. Labour is in the pocket of union barons".
This is politics at its most cynical and divisive, not to mention dishonest. The reality of the Coalition's strategy is very different, as Seamas Milne says here. Austerity Britain is really about:
"payday loans, food banks, the bedroom tax, G4S and... zero-hours contracts"
This is all part of the government's plan. The Conservatives' plan is nothing less than a revolution by stealth; to undo the social progress that was made through the "postwar consensus", and a final completion of the Thatcherite (Neo-liberal) economic vision. It is a vision of hell for many employees.
The systematic erosion of employee rights is part and parcel of that. Anecdotes about the reality of zero-hour contracts abound: about how it is creating a growing workforce of virtual slaves, on top of the culture of internships that has proliferated.
The Tories claim that unemployment is going down and that the economy is improving. Even if this claim was taken at face value, there is a very simple reason why that might be true: because employers are offering jobs at far worse conditions than before, and with the ever-increasing cost of living, the unemployed have little choice. This is especially true of young people. So employers are able to "create" four jobs on zero-hours contracts, for example, where one "real" job would have existed before. This is the basis of Britain's so-called "recovery". So companies are improving their books by creating a new type of working regime.
The article about zero-hours contracts also describes the type of working regime. It has been said that private companies operate like dictatorships; it is government regulation that forces them to abide by humane and fair working conditions, otherwise it is a matter of the employer's whim. With the Conservatives intent on throwing those "restrictive" regulations out of the window, it is clear that employees working on zero-hours contracts are working in companies that operate like miniature Fascist dictatorships: where an employee's hours from one week to the next depend on currying favour with the boss, and a wrong word can get your hours and pay reduced to zero (while still being "employed"), until you are back in the boss' good books. Employees therefore need to compete with each other to get the most hours, while the employer treats his employees like serfs.The employee's contract bans him from finding other part-time work elsewhere to boost his earnings, so the only option he has is unemployment (and then having to explain to the job centre why he voluntarily gave up work).
Lack of control is the key to fear. In "Austerity Britain", the rise of unpaid internships and the instability offered by zero-hours contracts are symbols of the government's attack on employees' rights. While the economy might be technically "improving", the figures say nothing about how the "recovery" is made possible: by destroying employees' rights. As always, when those at the top screw up, it's those at the bottom that take the hit. This is what can also be called "Corporate Socialism".
The financial crisis was seen by Neo-liberal supporters as a failure of government interference, rather than the true corruption of the market system created by globalisation, that gathers control in markets into huge cartels of multinationals, unaccountable to government. As this system creates a cartelisation of the world market on a macro level, it creates an incentive to make labour markets more and more flexible, and more and more uncertainty for employees. And creating uncertainty is the key to power.
The financial crisis therefore serves two useful purposes: as a way to instill fear and uncertainty (i.e. compliance) into the workforce; and as an opportunity to erode employee's rights.
The Neo-liberal model that the Coalition supports therefore has used the financial crisis as an opportunity to further extend the Neo-liberal "revolution". While the British economy may make some small recovery on paper, this hides the truth that the UK economy is massively weighted in favour of the financial and service sector in the South-east of England, as I've said before. The neo-liberal model is naturally weighted against all other parts of the country, as the various regional economies have never been able to fully adapt after the collapse of Empire fifty years ago. Parts of the north resemble parts of the former Soviet Union because some towns and cities (like in the USSR) specialised in one industry.
So while those responsible for the financial crisis - the corrupt financial institutions who created a credit time-bomb - remain unpunished, they pass the debt burden onto the taxpayer (via the government), who is then told that in this new regime, government cannot afford to do what it did before, and that employees must accept increasingly serf-like working conditions (that financially benefit those responsible for the financial crisis).
But this is ignored by many. As long as capitalism provides new forms of technology to pass the time between the destruction of their human rights, who cares?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)