Digested Read – Spirit Level 6: Future Options

11 comments on “Digested Read – Spirit Level 6: Future Options ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   10 October 2010 at 11:10 am

   “…it will take a transformation, with a sustained sense of direction and a strong view as to how to achieve the required changes.”

   In what sense is that not revolution?

   When you talk of highly democratised workplaces (the co-ops and collectives), then here is an implicit acknowledgement that the vertical division of labour has been abolished in such scenarios.
   That’s revolutionary.

   When you that say that “We cannot wait for the government to solve the problem for us…”(by which I assume you mean Social Democratic governance structures), then the implication is that decision making and implementation of decisions made has been pushed down and out to the level of the citizenry.
   That’s revolutionary.

   I don’t understand the fear of, or need to expunge from argument or debate the R word when everything said can only be understood in R word terms.

   Oh. Just one note. Many of the so-called co-operatives you mention are co-operatives in name only. There is only a very minimal voice given to workers or clients/consumers and ‘traditional’ hierarchical management structures are very much maintained.

   Yes, they tend to be less capitalist that other capitalist business models insofar as they try to incorporate a modicum of ethics into their business. Unfortunately, they are subject to transformation driven by very powerful market forces and so and tend to revert to unethical capitalist models over the long term. E.g. Cadbury’s and the other chocolate manufacturers who were set with an express purpose of providing a good life for employees in addition to mere profit. And now Cadbury’s is owned by Craft. And was involved in some very unethical business practices before that ( palm oil and child labour are two that spring to mind)
   • Bunji 1.1

     10 October 2010 at 3:50 pm

     I guess there’s probably a difference between ‘revolutionary’ and ‘revolution’. Revolution implies a marked break, a juncture and dislocation. The authors suggest this might be counter-productive, when the aim is to create a more socialised society. I guess whilst the ideas may be revolutionary, they want to achieve them by a rapid evolution, rather than a revolution…

     And they go into quite a bit of detail about (easily) creating structures where the employees can’t sell out to private investors – and thus creating the Cadbury situation. They mention the similar mass privatisation of mutual insurance and financial companies in the 80s and 90s as well. Similarly they want to encourage the more democratic co-operatives, knowing not all co-ops are created equal. But they are generally on a sliding scale of good (for workers, society and the planet), especially when compared to trans-national corporations.

     So I don’t think there’s much to disagree with actually! (other than my over-summarising…)
     • Bill 1.1.1

       10 October 2010 at 10:06 pm

       I don’t think of revolution as a marked break and the imposition of a new order.

       Historically, such a dynamic merely indicates the ushering in of a new elite, ie a transference of power occurring within upper echelons of a given social order or the capture of those echelons…eg the so-called Russian Revolution.

       Revolution is, or should be indistinguishable from democracy insofar as both are, or should be, marked by a constantly unfolding/evolving set of processes.

       I would opine that the contemporary sham that constitutes and informs our ideas of democracy (and the aspirations that are necessarily limited by that orthodox understanding of democracy) is unmasked by the inability to inextricably marry the concepts of democracy and revolution.

       Minus the sham, they become indistinguishable. Or put another way, the mark of our sham of democracy is the inability of our democracy to embrace revolutionary aspirations.

       Our disagreements are subtle but not insubstantial.
     • Bill 1.1.2

       10 October 2010 at 10:22 pm

       A point worth reiterating is that the Cadbury and Fry’s and other ethical company models are doomed because they are subject to market forces.

       You can have all the regulation you want in place to protect their integrity, but the historical record shows that market driven political shifts will always tend to erode whatever protections are in place.

       The initial incarnation of Cadbury et al was at least as socially aware as what the spirit level might advocate. And those companies (their social ethic) are gone and the market environment is immeasurably more rapacious than it was when they were initially brought into being.

       If they could not survive an evolving market, they (or any emulation of them) cannot be expected to flourish in a market that is so much more evolved and set today than it was back then.

       The problem is not so much as what we attempt within the constraints of the market so much as that we limit our endeavours to be within the constraints of the market
2. dave brown 2

   10 October 2010 at 12:47 pm

   Save you money and watch David Harvey explain capitalism.
   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5820769496384969148#
3. M 3

   10 October 2010 at 1:44 pm

   Dave

   Thanks for the link – I have downloaded two of his two-hour mp3 lectures but it’s cool to have the video – he also has a BBC Hardtalk interview on YT about why capitalism must ultimately fail.

   I think for many people it’s innate that they feel the need to hoist themselves up just that little bit higher than their fellow wo/man so they can feel like they’re winners. From the guy who has to eat bake beans all the time to fund his flash car habit to women who feel they need to wear all their wealth on their backs and feet to feel they’re acceptable in society’s eyes or to attract a man. Make no mistake, I like attractive apparel but realised a long time ago there has to be a time when you have to say when.

   Personally I don’t think that there is job worth more than 200K and that would have to be for a top brain surgeon. Over the past 30 years salaries have crept up for the so-called top dogs and for a lot of these top job holders they don’t really do anything that benefits society as a whole – there is just so much wankerism out there. This is not economic envy as I don’t think materialism pays much in the way of dividends and I know that what passes for the good life will be coming to an end shortly with peak oil just waiting for the curtain to fall down and I find it difficult to be friends with people who are so out of touch with the impending crises we are all about to undergo. I should imagine that there will be a great deal of weeping and gnashing of teeth from the mandarins who are going to fall a long, long way and many will simply make a quick exit either via the noose or will make their final purchase of razor blades and draw a bath.

   Equality will only come once we’ve hit rock bottom in much the same it was during the first Great Depression (I believe we’re in GD2) where at first people were pretty selfish and mean but then came to understand the enormity of what the Depression really meant in that it was a massive transfer or wealth upwards to a very small group and started to be more co-operative – same thing really during WWII as far as co-operation goes.
   • Bored 3.1

     10 October 2010 at 2:39 pm

     In between times you can be gauranteed you and I will be asked to be more productive and “work harder”. Always a good one that, the real question is “work harder for whom”?
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

       10 October 2010 at 2:56 pm

       And the answer is always the same: the financial parasites.
4. dave brown 4

   10 October 2010 at 3:28 pm

   RSA animate deals with Harvey’s arguments about human nature, ‘greed’ and ‘selfishness’.
   
5. Benjamin B. 5

   10 October 2010 at 7:58 pm

   To understand how inequality comes about, I can only recommend The Shock Doctrine. Eye opener. The Spirit Level may be next …

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 9 October 2010 at 9:05 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS