You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'power' tag.
Capitalist society is fueled by wage inequality. It’s the main glue that holds the whole mess together. Not only because it allows those with the majority of the wealth to dictate how things go and thus keep themselves in possession of the majority of the wealth, but also because it acts as a very attractive carrot.
We all know the Local Boy Comes Good story. It’s one of the most fundamental stories of civilisation. It teaches us that, if we only work ‘hard’ enough then we too can join those with the majority of the wealth. This story keeps people content to earn a fraction of top CEOs because, they believe, they too have a chance to earn disgusting levels of income. However, the vast majority of people who are earning seven figure sums have parents who earn such figures. Old money, it’s called. The major deciding factor isn’t the results you have but the place you got those results. If you have Eton and Oxford/Cambridge on your CV that’s what’s important.
Interestingly, what they seem to mean by ‘work hard’ is ‘willing to plunder, abuse and exploit for profit’. There are very few (if any) large companies which have clean records. Most have been fined for breaking the law when it was profitable to do so. Many have factories in developing countries where they can employ children for less than it costs to have three meals a day and work them for 72 hours a week. If hard work truly brought with it the rewards we are supposed to believe it does then these children should have the majority of the wealth. However, they don’t. They can barely afford to feed and house themselves and are forced into working because their parents can’t make enough money for them not to work. Companies get fat and profitable by exploiting such children and supporting the repressive regime which allows them to beat their employees and fire them when they reach 16.
When scandals like those conscerning Enron hit we are always assured that those responsible are just a couple of ‘bad apples’, and that the vast majority of businesses are honest. This is demonstrably not true, all you need do is look at the fines imposed on companies for breaking the law to see that the majority of them will break the law so long as the cost analysis shows it to be more profitable. Edward Norton’s job in Fight Club is the kind of thing I am talking about.
“A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.” – ‘Jack’ The Narrator, Fight Club 1999.
Now, I’m not saying that Norton’s quote above is factually accurate, I can believe it, but I don’t know if there is actually a specific person who does that. However, such cost analysis are done all the time, is it cheaper to pay people damages or to recall this or that line, is it cheaper to abide by fair competition laws or is it cheaper to say to hell with them and absorb the fine, is it cheaper to pay for the licensed loggers to go into the Amazon and cut the limited amount of wood the Brazilian authorities allows, or is it cheaper not to ask where the wood came from and thus buy it from illegal loggers who have no right to cut down trees? So long as option A is more expensive than option B, we take option B, that it’s illegal or not is moot.
Another story we are often told is that if we don’t like what a company is doing we can vote with our feet, hit them in the wallet where it hurts, and make them change their minds. We are supposed to hear this and accept that it is fair. However, this is about as unfair as you can get. Our voting system operates on one man one vote because that is the fairest way to run a system to give everyone an equal share of the power. Voting with your feet is totaly unfair, because it gives Joe Bigbucks many times more votes than Norman Nocash. Joe, by virtue of having more money is a more attractive customer to the company and so is the one they target with their advertising. Norman is the same age and gender as Joe and is interested in all the same things, however because he is poor he isn’t the target audience of the companies advertising and the company doesn’t care what he thinks. So long as Joe is happy to shop there ther company doesn’t mind if Norman never comes throgh their doors again, he could neve buy much even when he did.
Voting with our feet is a fantastic story for the rich to tell. Invariably, those unhappy with the status quo are those who are not benefiting from it. Those who benefit from the status quo (or feel they do by being able to afford McMansions, Hummers, SUVs, etc) are often very content with it. Activists are normally those who are fed up of being stepped on by the system, not always, but mostly. I’ll grant you that most of the activists in support of fox hunting were no where near the bread-line. As a result of this, more often than not the people who care what a company is doing in Nicaragua, the Philippines, etc and want to change it aren’t the ones with a lots of feet votes. But, because they buy the voting with your feet story they are happy to register their displeasure by staying at home and not shopping with the company, despite never really having shopped there in the past and not having any plans to shop there in the future. The story works as an excellent way to keep the number of people who think direct action protests are the answer to our collective problems to a minimum.
People sitting at home watching the TV are even easier to ignore.
After writing my entry about Hobo Stripper’s blog, it got me thinking about the use of the police as an arm of the state designed to remove obsticles to the rich getting richer. I think one of the most compelling and obvious areas where their use in this regard can be seen is in the sphere of protest.
The police have powers under the Public Order Act (1986) to regulate both static assemblies and processions. These powers have very loose restrictions on them. For example, the most senior officer present at a procession can impose any limits he likes (such as changing the route, limiting the number of people allowed to take part, limiting the number of banners, restricting the use of objects used to make noise, etc) so long as he believes doing so will prevent:
- serious public disorder
- serious damage to property
- serious disruption to the life of the community
- the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others
Most people can probably get on board with 1,2 and 4. They seem reasonable at first glance and so 3 manages to worm it’s way past as well, it’s in reasonable company, after all.
However, how does one quantify the disruption to the life of the community? I don’t know how you would define the life of the community, let alone what serious disruption is. Were the bombings of 7/7 seriously disrupting? Or was that very serious disruption? Is a bunch of people blocking a road serious disruption? Even when section 11 of the Act requires that the police be given 6 days notice of any planned procession?
How does one place protest outside ‘the life of the community’? How does one judge so as to qualify certain acts as within and other acts not within the life of the community? Protest is, we are so often told, fundamental to the democratic tradition. So, if something is fundamental to our way of life, how can it not be part of the life of the community? So how can seriously disrupting it make sense if the disruption is to prevent a serious disruption to the life of the community?
By ‘life of the community’ they mean ‘day to day life of non-protesting consumers’, because, as we know, while protest may be important in a democracy, commerce is the life blood of capitalism and we are a capitalist society much more than we are a democratic one. As such this provision is used to stop protests using busy roads. But, I would contend, a protest which does not inconvenience anyone is a waste of time. The point of a protest is to get noticed, to get attention and to make people think about the cause. These things are invariably done best when the person is put out in some way
Demonstrations which support the status quo are all fine. Things like the Memorial Day marches are fine (most people would not recognise these kinds of things as demonstrations, but they are, they are demonstrating support for the armed forces or veterans of the armed forces, supporting the status quo).
Because the police are charged with ‘keeping the peace’ they are empowered to do whatever is necessary, including detaining you for 7 hours even without you having done anything other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The case ,which I can’t remember the name of now, involved a man being detained with a lot of protesters, despite not being a protester himself. The House of Lords ruled that it was fine, since other people might have possibly done something to cause a breach of the peace. Other people might have done something so this man, who told the police he was completely unrelated to the demonstraters, was allowed to be detained for 7 hours. Legally.
So long as it supports the status quo the police can do whatever they like, including push protesters backwards when there is a sudden drop behind them, as can be seen in Taking Liberties.
No one is ever asked if they want to be subject to the power of the police. No one is ever given the choice because there can be no choice. Your input into the process is once every four or five years when it comes time to vote for your colour of preference. This doesn’t change the powers the police can use, of course, it simply means you can take heart from the knowledge that you either helped the new bunch of liars into power, or moan that they’re doing it wrong and how your guys would have been so much better. Truly, if voting changed anything it would be illegal, as are all viable protest methods.
Sorry about the scatter gun nature of this post, I’m a little unfocused.
