Hello everybody.
Woods asked me about the welfare state that I mentioned earlier, and I
started to write about what I know of it. It 's here, allthough the ending
is perhaps a bit more bitter than it should. There is still hope after all,
and if you like, you can blame it all on my youth.
Here it goes:
I cannot pretend to be an objective (funny word that) observer of the
development of the Kingdom of Sweden, but I have read some history, and I
know about the development of what is called "the Nordic model" which
basically is a universal welfare state (the UK had a welfare state before
since the troubles of the rapid industrialisation and the suffering of
people that followed started out there, and because they tend to be a pretty
practical people I suppose) which is a more extensive welfare state,
represented as it is by when the Swedish parliament passed the ATP-law,
entitling everyone (who had worked and paid taxes) to a pretty generous
state-funded pension in 1950-something. The Nordic-model-welfare state was
based on a broad cooperation between the (loosely translated)
"farmer/agricultural-party" and the social-democratic workers-party.
Together they (the social-democrats gradually grew in strength and numbers
and eventually became the driving force altogether) worked very hard, for
the most part of the 1900ds, not only for workers rights, fair pay, limited
hours, pensions and all that stuff, but they also worked to create a secure
society altogether. That word "secure" doesn't really translate the Swedish
"tryggt" very well, because that word is much broader. It implies that a
secure society is a society that takes care of it's citizens, a society that
isn't built on "fight or fall" or something like that - the idea is that
everyone should get a fair chance, and that the society should be one
characterized by solidarity - and from this grew the term "Folkhemmet",
referring to the whole of society, literally meaning "the peoples home" and
translated by my dictionary to: "the Swedish welfare state".
You know. Now we sort of joke about it, referring to it perhaps as boring or
something like that - but when I really read about it, I, and all the people
also reading the history course with me all were stricken with a sense of
awe of the accomplishment in creating that, and at how beautiful the whole
thing seemed.
It is sort of gone now, not completely, because it has become a part of what
we are, and what Sweden is. But the social democrats back in the 70's and
especially the 80's were faced with a global economy that was going really
badly, there was wars, oil crisis and all that stuff (you wouldn't' happen
to know anything about that stuff would you? Kidding =) and by then they
were old. I find that's really the best explanation for it. They, the social
democrats had worked for so long to create this, and they had basically
succeeded, and now they, as a movement were old, and sitting quite
comfortable in their chair of power. Their response to the problems of the
economy was to make liberal reforms in certain areas here and there, but it
didn't really go that well. All I know really, is that somewhere along that
bumpy road leading us through the 80's and 90's, when we experienced a few
right-wing governments since the social democrats was loosing the confidence
of the people - somewhere along that road they lost their soul. They took
their eye away from the ball - they were transformed, in essence, from a
party with visions of how they wanted society to be one day, into what we
now see everywhere: a post-modern value-less soul-less mediocre party that
is really only interested in power, small fixes, and maintaining status quo.
You know. I'm not saying that it's all their fault, because it's the whole
thing, with global business cycles and war and bubbles of that and that that
burst and everybody get's disillusioned, and most foremost it is this world
we now live in that is a value-less "don't believe in anything unless it's a
part of you image"-kind off world that is to blame. But they lost their way,
and they never went back to it, perhaps because they, like everyone else
just couldn't bring themselves to believe in anything anymore, especially
not a better tomorrow.
And so we sit here now, with a right wing-government that actually DOES
believe, only, the thing they believe in is the market, and they don't
believe in social security and all that stuff, it's all about being an
"entrepreneur" and stuff like that and the magic workings of the market.
Still, it didn't take very long after we'd elected this new government and
thrown out the old (literally) social-democrats that we thought were too old
and power-greedy before we realised that the things the right-wingers
(liberals by your books by the way) wanted to do, and are going to do, take
away parts of our social security to cut taxes and all that stuff - we
really don't want it. We wanted change, so we changed, only now do we
realize that we actually could loose all those things that we really do
like, the security that we've grown so used to - they actually want to cut
down on that - of course, they probably said they would do that at some
point, but most people, I think, never really though that much about it.
"yea, cut back on the social security to give the lazy people a motivation
to work" people swallowed that. Only afterwards they realized that cutting
down on that would affect their security too.
So we are moving more and more away from that "people's home" we once had,
or almost had anyway, and people start to forget it. They don't have time to
remember it. Because they have to hurry to get money to get new fashionable
clothes, to watch Idol and So You Think You Can Dance and be updated on
celebrity gossip and to be socially accepted and to get more money to climb
the social ladder and to then get the perfect life that requires even more
money and to get kids that must have a good education that requires even
more money and.
There is no time. People are turned into cattle. And there is no time to
think. There is no time to believe. Unless you have that as your image. But
then again, an image costs money, so you have to get that and then you don't
have time to think about what your image really means.
And those people, those people that worked so hard, who gave their lives to
build a society where people could feel safe and secure and where everybody
had a descent chance and where people didn't have to step on others in order
to get that chance, those people. If they were here. I believe they would
cry to see what we have done with their legacy.
.
chris
Chris:
What would be a good word for wanting to build a extensive welfare state
with
"radical" democracy? Because that is really what I am all about, I want
to make
democracy work by making it possible for people to understand what it is.
To give them the time and the means to understand it. That's what a
welfare
state is Good for. So that people can feel safe and be able to develop
themselves
in whatever way they want. That way we can work towards a society where
people needn't be so bound by social values, because they are liberated
by
being born into a society where realizing your potential and going after
Quality
is possible without the constant fear of failing and ending up on the
streets or
something like that.
woods:
There is a lot in this. If I have the intellectual patterns to
continue, then I
wouldn't mind parsing this. I understand the fear aspect, but I wonder
if
it is really about not having a safety net and this holds people back?
Are
you suggesting this?
Chris:
I'm suggesting that society today is made up so that intellectual values
always comes secondary, because the capitalist system puts focus on social
level values. You are born into this society, and as you grow up you
realise that unless you can get some money, you really can't do anything.
For you to "make it" in that way is essential. You may have all kinds of
goals in life, but your chances of pursuing them is determined by if you
can afford it. In essence, if you value intellectual Good, before you can
explore that you must gain high social value, and the chances of that may
be small, because if what you value is knowledge within a certain area,
you will be good at understanding that, but that may not necessarily
translate into social value - I.e. you may not be able to make money out
of it very quickly, and if you can't make money out of it, your chances of
exploring that is very slim.
FIRST you need to make sure you can make some money, and THEN you can
explore you potential .Some people are lucky, and what they value happens
to be something you can make money out of, but that's far from everyone.
And this limits humanity.
A welfare state, kind of like the one we used to have over here, should
among other things make sure that when you are born and grow up, you are
free to pursuit your potential, no matter what material conditions you
have. And it is to make sure that if what you value is certain knowledge,
you get to explore that, even if that knowledge doesn't immediately
translate into monetary profits. That's maximising humanities recourses.
You never know when me might need that knowledge that perhaps isn't all
that profitable today.
THAT'S MY POINT! What is profitable controls what knowledge we can
develop, AND THAT IS IMMORAL - because that you can make money out of it,
most of the time that only means that it has high social value.
So how does one change that? What do you think?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
