LJ 2011-03-01 07:41:00
What’s happening in Wisconsin is a terrible indictment of where Capitalism actually leads us.
Personally, I’d like to say that I don’t understand how something like this happens, except that the election of a Conservative government (if you can call a failure to win a majority “being elected”) in this country points to the same thing.
Somehow, when people are at the ballot box, they vote against their own interests, and in favour of “business interests”, which is basically a broader way of saying that you vote for money. Not that you vote to have money – that you vote to give the power to money, wherever that might be or whomever it might belong to.
The Conservatives may have talked up their bank-busting intent prior to the election, but research has shown that more than 50% of Tory funds come from the City of London, which would suggest that bankers see them as the party least likely to damage their interests. And with that level of dependency on bankers, the situation only reinforces that dynamic.
So it shouldn’t surprise me that the governor of Wisconsin is basically an evil man who cares only to protect the interests of his billionaire pals, at the expense of the human rights of the ordinary men and women in his state. Why wouldn’t they have voted for somebody like that?
Now, for me, I would consider the battle lost at the point at which I had to pass laws in order to suppress the people I’m meant to represent. I guess there are some people out there who consider that to be a valid tool to use as part of “governing”, if you can really call it that.
I’ve seen it said that one of the amazing things about capitalism is that for some reason it encourages the poor to want to emulate the rich rather than simply steal from them. It goes further than that – for some reason, the poor vote that the rich should be in charge of them. Our own Chancellor is a perfect example of that – a super-rich weasel who will never himself be affected by the cuts to services that he’s introducing.
The basic right of workers to form unions is a natural response to the formation of companies. A body with lots of money, a large HR department, and the best legal advice money can buy is a scary thing to leave unopposed. Forming a union is the only reasonable way for the workforce to respond – it gives them the same level of scale as the company itself, and enables collective bargaining in which both sides have power. Do I think unions always work perfectly? No, not at all. But are they a completely necessary part of the machinery? Absolutely.
So the idea that a man elected by the people would seek to dismantle the mechanism by which those people are empowered to resist the naked abuses of capitalism is kind of sickening. There really are only two sides to this – you’ve got union rights (human rights) and employers’ rights (money rights). The idea that money should be able to do as it pleases must be rejected at all levels.
Laws protecting concepts such as strike action or collective bargaining exist because the people, the majority, wish them to exist. That through a representative democracy the people can turn over control to “the enemy” and allow them to take those laws apart is a serious flaw in the system.
One Solution – y’all know where the rhyme goes from there….