Class Power and Envy

Roy

@mikecabic: Very well put. You've perfectly articulated what I wanted to say but hadn't got round to formulating into a cogent argument. The other thing I've been wanting to point out is to remind people who say, as the original poster did, that "if people have money then well done to them" that money isn't real - it's a a social construct. It's a way of rationing access to resources in 'the market', which is essentially an auction. And if other people have more money, it means they can bid more for resources, hence raising the price. So if other people have (a lot) of money, then it means they can outbid you in the market and cause you to have less stuff. Obviously they don't cause you to have less money, but the effect is just as real - they bid up the prices of things: they allow the suppliers to charge more because suppliers in a free market will charge what the market is willing to pay and they are willing to pay more. The result is that they cause those things to become more expensive, and the people who aren't wealthy end up being able to afford less stuff. Which is probably actulally pretty close to the point that mikecabic was making. And with apologies to those who think my (probalby rather bad) lesson in Economics 101 is just stating the blindingly obvious, -roy

Arkady

@Kreuzkav, the idea that stronger global governance is overly ‘optimistic’ seems rather contrary to the current climate. A Robin Hood tax, for instance, is very much on the agenda of the G8. It has support both at grassroots and from the commercial elites. For an example of grassroots campaign see: <http://robinhoodtax.org/>; (if Bill Nighy wants it then it must be good) For elite support see this article on the Rothschilds (who in your argument would be against it as the uber-greedmeisters): <http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/24/a-rothschild-plan-for-world-government/>; Capitalism breaks down borders. It is undermining the very nation-states that it created in the pre-globalisation era. We’re just yet to catch up with this in our heads. Once we stop thinking of ourselves in such parochial terms we will have a framework for resistance. At the moment the ‘anti-cutters’ are fighting a losing battle, righteous though their cause may be. @Roy – don’t apologise. People need reminding, and most don’t think about it at all.

Roy

@Arkady: Is a Robin Hood tax a new 'marketing' name for a Tobin tax, or is it something different? -roy

Arkady

A Tobin tax is limited to foreign currency exchange. ‘Robin Hood tax’ is indeed somewhat of a marketing name, but it applies to a wider range of financial transactions. Also the purpose of the Tobin tax was to stabilise financial markets rather than redistribute wealth.

Roy

Re the Foreign Policy Journal article - I was having problems with it right from the start as it seemed to be pushing the American right wing nutjob agenda that climate change is some invented agenda. But I'm afraid when I got to the point where it claims that the City of London is an independent sovereign state independent of the UK in the same way that the Vatican is independent of Italy I stopped reading and dismissed it as the product of an entirely deranged mind. -roy

Arkady

The article is definitely written from a paleo-conservative position. It even quotes the eurosceptic nutjob Lord Monckton as a credible source. But the core fact – that the Rothschilds and the banking system in general is very keen on global governance - stands. Again: the nation-state was formed by the symbiosis of existing elites with the growing commercial elite, who lent money in exchange for systematic law enforcement over defined geographical spaces. What we now call ‘nations’ emerged within these states – the nation is the product of the state, not the other way around. We now see this process happening again, as it has been since the mid nineteenth century, only this time at a global level. The same economic forces, the same commercial elites. And just as those absolutist states were transformed into liberal democracies with mass participation, the same needs to happen at global level. This, I suggest, is our task. The ‘old left’ in the UK whinging about national sovereignty and cuts are failing to see the bigger picture. National campaigns will achieve little or nothing, and even if they successfully resisted them we would all end up being worse off in the medium term. Capital knows no nation.

mikecabic

@ Arkady A message from Furby 2: I agree the old left are in a bit of a timewarp. But it is not whether holders of capital want a state, of course they do. They need legal protection and stability to shift investments to where it will generate the gretest return. It is about who ends up controlling that state. Surely the substance of the union argument, that it would lead to policies that wouldn't pass in a national context, where labour and capital are equally represented, has come to bear. For example the ability of a 'foreign' company to undercut wage settlements with imported labour, because wage settlements are not negotiated in a universal fashion, something impossible under UK law. The unions should have engaged with the EU to shape it to their ends, but the underpinning structure of the labour laws in the UK are incompatible with many eureopean systems. It was unpleasant to see the way 'British jobs for British workers' was covered, but they did in fact have a legitimate gripe that was lost in the usual drivel that is our newspaper industries' best effort. Many European countries have industry and nation wide binding wage and conditions agreements, that stipulate the minimum salary for an occupation and industry - a 'foreign' company is welcome to come in and deliver a service, but only within the existing wage settlement that the unions have negotiated. In the UK the wage settlement is only binding to the parties signing. It's a bit chicken and egg, but at the moment the EU undermines workers rights in the UK and reduces tehir ability to act collectively. At the same time, there is no impetuous for unions in many european coutnries to engage, because their legal frameworks afford them a degree of protection for their social partnership arrangements.

Arkady

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/13/robin-hood-tax-economists-letter>;

kreuzkav

For those who think that global systems are self-regulating, please watch this series:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2011/may/06/documentary-internet-adam-curtis

tosscat

[yawn](http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2011/may/06/documentary-internet-adam-curtis )

ADGS

Adam Curtis is a master of accusing other people of constructing simplistic, totalising narratives - while doing exactly the same bloody thing. He's a very good film editor, but he should take those skills and go work for someone with substance and a dash of historical sense.

Emma

Hahaha, wondering how long it would take for ADGS to show up.

I really like AC, and sort of agree with ADGS that it's foolish to take his narrative as gospel. As with any academic - historian, literary critic etc - with a narrative arc to sell, he does it very well, but you're meant to analyse and ask questions and look for the other point(s) of view. Just 'cos it's on the BBC, he's under no oblilgation to explore every single argument available on a given topic.

kreuzkav

Agree it was a one sided polemical narrative but he put his point across well.