Making the deadly “popular”. That is all a politician thinks about- How do you get and stay “popular”

January 19, 2012
English: David Cameron's picture on the 10 Dow...

Image via Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was only a matter of a few weeks ago that this page went into some detail about the stupidity of the talk about “popular capitalism,” fair capitalism or words to that effect being used in the UK. Now it has been given the PM’s approval as a policy. It is one thing to talk about popular capitalism and another to say what the policy is to get there. you can read an article at the Guardian site at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/19/david-cameron-pledges-popular-capitalism

Questions that spring to mind are

Who will it be popular with? Obviously with those who profit or find comfort in dead possessions obtained from the people.

Who will put this miracle system into place? The answer from Cameron is,”I want them to lead to a socially responsible and genuinely popular capitalism,”

Who will benefit” The answer from Cameron comes in a fairly twisted way, ”The result was a series of lethal imbalances in our economy, between north and south, between financial services and manufacturing, between the people who got huge rewards at the top, or welfare at the bottom, while everyone else seemed to be left out.” This piece of nonsense paints those on welfare as fortunate at least, while at the top the rewards were huge.

The inevitable conclusion is that he sees welfare  as a reward, the difference between the top and bottom and why this inequality has occurred is left to empty words and gestures.

Has this happened before? Well the answer to that depends on where you either went to school or what you consider a square meal. To Cameron it seems that, This spirit led to the Factory Acts under Benjamin Disraeli, which began to set working conditions, and continued into the modern era as Conservatives forged a “genuinely popular capitalism” by opening up markets, ” You could be forgiven for thinking or wondering that many with a genuine interest in real history would view the Factory Acts somewhat differently. But he does expose a major theme. All will be good with new markets. Hence colonialism and the bastardisation of whole continents as the British imposed their economic will mostly by force on the rest of or as much as possible of the planet

It should be noted that by the 1844 Act,

  • Children 9–13 years could work for 9 hours a day with a lunch break.
  • Women and young people now worked the same number of hours. They could work for no more than 12 hours a day during the week, including one and a half hours for meals, and 9 hours on Sundays.
No doubt the popularity of capitalism then was that a 9 year old could look forward working no more than 12 hours a day
however, that was not the end of the matter because in 1847, ..After the Whigs gained power in Parliament, the Ten Hour Bill (also known as the Ten Hour Act) was passed becoming the Factories Act 1847 (citation 10 & 11 Vict c. 29). This law limited the work week in textile mills (and other textile industries except lace and silk production) for women and children under 18 years of age. Each work week contained 63 hours effective 1 July 1847 and was reduced to 58 hours effective 1 May 1848. In effect, this law limited the workday to 10 hours.This law was successfully passed due to the contributions of the Ten Hours Movement. This campaign was established during the 1830s and was responsible for voicing demands towards limiting the work week in textile mills. The leaders of the movement were Richard Oastler (who led the campaign outside Parliament), as well as John Fielden and Lord Shaftesbury (who led the campaign inside Parliament). Of course, employers found a ten hour limit acceptable as it meant that workers could be run in shifts, keeping the factory open for up to twenty hours a day.However, this Act related to cotton mills and the rest of the children had to wait until 1861 for this gracious legislation to be extended to all factories. By and large most of the legislative push for reform came from people who saw that the wealthy and successful had some sort of obligation to at least protect children.
But all that should be looked at against the background of the Poor Law created originally in 1601 and then in 1834 this law made poverty a crime which effectively meant the fault was with the poor through their idle lives. As Rudolf Rocker noted in “anarchosyndicalism at page40, “He who, smitten by fate, was compelled to seek refuge in the workhouse ( new invention made by the 1834 Act) surrendered his status as a human being, for these houses were outright prisons, in which the  individual was punished and humiliated for his personal misfortune.”
By this time the parliament having passed an act allowing the death penalty for the destruction of machines, then proceeded with measures against the workers combining

Together with popular capitalism comes a call for “responsible capitalism” the question there is responsible to who? Of course what is meant responsible to the same sort of people who put the pernicious system in place. In other words you get back to where you started.

The Cameron nonsense is shown by this part of what he is reported to have said,

“I believe that open markets and free enterprise are the best imaginable force for improving human wealth and happiness. They are the engine of progress, generating the enterprise and innovation that lifts people out of poverty and gives people opportunity.

“I would go further: where they work properly, open markets and free enterprise can actually promote morality. Why? Because they create a direct link between contribution and reward, between effort and outcome. The fundamental basis of the market is the idea of something for something – an idea we need to encourage, not condemn. So we should use this crisis of capitalism to improve markets, not undermine them.”

As to the idea that open markets and free enterprise promoting “morality” you need to give that word a severe twist to see the morality in exploiting other countries and their people, enforcing your own political beliefs through murder and by promoting unrest. Of course you have to totally ignore the unequal distribution of wealth, you just accept that as part of the “morality” being preached. Perhaps luckily for Cameron his idea that,” we should use this crisis of capitalism to improve markets, not undermine them” seems to go unexplained perhaps the only explanation is that if capitalists were perfect people then they would have a perfect system or some such nonsense.

To put more nails in the capitalist coffin Cameron graciously says,”"No true Conservative has a naive belief that all politics has to do is step back and let capitalism rip,” But that is the whole point, there are no free markets they are rigidly controlled to direct the profits to the elite. Free enterprise is just the freedom to take part in the process of domination. manipulation and humiliation of the people by those lucky enough to be at or near the top.

What he says is completely correct there is no point in letting anything “rip” let alone capitalism what is needed is absolute control at all times. Try listening to one of those stern Fourth Reich lectures by Merkel and you will see how prized and valued these ideals are for the capitalists and how the rest is expected to pay and keep paying for these capitalist virtues. Then should the need arise you can always put members of the rest in uniform military or police ones and send then out to enforce the capitalist ideals. Failure to conform is as usual dealt with by the law of the rulers and dispensed through their court system.

George Ikners  ikners.com gikners@gmail.com

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Categories

Archives