Cooperation and teamwork…

The new time’s melody at our workplaces (since around 20 years) was teamwork. Did something happen in parallel with this “new trend”? I have to add that I think working together can improve what’s done a lot. It CAN, but it doesn’t necessarily do (but that’s another thread).

We shall “teamwork” at workplaces, but what about teamworking i.e. cooperating and getting together about really substantial things outside our workplaces?

You shall but you shall not!?

Came to think about a blogposting today: what about “devoting oneself” to self-damaging behavior? That’s nothing to talk about, because there are other more important and bigger questions. Such as for instance a president forbidding/banning (read: dictating - as a dictator) the further use and selling of a certain sort of light bulbs and a certain sort of fuel consuming car… More on light bulbs.

How tired I get…

We shall work for and only promote ourselves and not care about other people (unless they aren’t higher in the hierarchy than I am)?? Be independent islands all of us. Work in small separated cells, at least outside work. But at work we have to cooperate (AND compete at the same time). Survival of the fittest and the most “adaptable”!

To which people with self-damaging behavior don’t belong! They aren’t really capable of adapting to the society, or workplaces or anything, are they? (observe the irony).

And I can’t help wondering who are the most “adaptable” (how empathic is that)? Are many psychopaths the most “adaptable”?

The weakest and also the most compassionate and empathic can founder!? And many of them also do!?

The biggest bullies are the ones that survive best? Because they aren't called in question??? You tend to admire and look up to those instead?

Survival of the fittest, what persons deserve freedom, and what persons get it?

Is it true that it should be (are) the most adaptable (flexible) who survives best? And the less that have most problems surviving?

If we should examine people in higher positions, earning more money then the average, what would we find? That they are the most flexible or adaptable, more than most of those under them? Or can they be very inflexible, no especially adaptive, rigid, stiff? (Do many of them have more means hiding this too?)

But it’s not impossible that many of them want to believe that they are superior and deserve their position and wealth?

Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, is about blaming the one who is a failure, who don’t succeed! With your success or failure you have proved if you are as good as other people or less good! If you deserve a decent living or not!

Strikes me once again; empathy is said to be one of several risk factors for burnout according to science.

Thought about inconsequence (arrogance, cynicism) in rhetoric (in politics, on the net in debates there etc.), an inconsequence making you totally confused and thus unfortunately entirely mute. Who is the stupid here? It must be me (primary defense?).

Neoliberals have told me that if nobody wants my product: my piano-playing, piano teacher work, then those things has to die. If nobody is willing to pay me for those things, goodbye with it.

But if a neoliberal try to sell his products or services as an own manufacturer with little or no success, then the failing success has with something else to do then with the need for or quality of his product, something it had in my case though. It’s nothing wrong with their product or what they want to sell (compared with my “product”), but the fault lays somewhere else, on taxes, the society, the government.

How is it with the logical thinking?

When the power has succeeded to make us, the grassroots, fight they have succeeded! People won’t see the ruling class or what they are doing if the grassroots are fighting between themselves. Forces try to make us believe that we have the same chance as those wealthy. Playing on the false hope defense.

The “weak” can die or something? Who are loyal with them? Loyal with the losers?

The wealthiest, richest and with most power join in groups of lots a different kinds to support each other (and most of those are men too), they organize themselves in closed and (often) secret groups. Loyal to each other?

But who are loyal to us. How do we, the grassroots, deal with this? By trying to be awaken to things, not let the power divide and rule! Who are going to protect the weak groups in society? (who are the weak and where does he weakness comes from?).

From where comes limitless needs? Can those ever become filled?

In the blogposting “Political mathematics” you can read that demands on cars, TVs and cell phones have decreased in the global financial crisis paths. The need for school education, glaucoma and cataract surgery and changing diapers are on the other hand unchanged from losses of demands on the market. But the government doesn’t think it can afford looking so those needs are covered- we have a crisis for God’s sake! The message from the secretary in charge is that we have to prioritize.

But the truth is that the government has prioritized differently for how the money shall become spent. New and more an more gloomy prognoses are published almost weekly about how drastic the cuts that will become forced on the general welfare. The needed money is almost exactly the money the tax cuts are for work! This means that 30 000 people will lose their jobs. 30 000 persons whose jobs are needed everyday, everywhere in the country. They are at risk of losing their jobs because the government doesn’t think if can afford them!

The Left party, as the envious bores they are (as the blog owner calls herself and her friends), has initiated an investigation how the tax cuts for work are divided among people in different income groups. Just to check if it really is the low and middle wage earners who are the most benefited by those tax cuts.

If it is like that, something the government readily claims, there is some sort of demand stimulus in the reform that at least isn’t totally crazy in a recession.

But it isn’t like this.

As a matter of fact more than 52 percent of the tax cuts for work go to the highest paid third part. They don’t need to increase their consumption. They will in all likelihood not do this to any significant degree. People on these income levels save the money they get over and the money neither lead to jobs nor to tax revenues.

The lowest paid on the contrary are made do with 8 percent of the tax cuts total value.

The 15 billion Swedish Crowns it’s about here could have become used better. A billion could have one to the lowest paid. While 14 billions needed for keeping the staff in the health care, child care and school could have gone exactly to those things.

It should, in contrast to using them to even more increase the already highly paid peoples’ space for savings, have become used to keeping the unemployment down and the employment up – something that actually should have been highly prioritized given the general state on the labor market.

This would in turn have held 30 000 publicly employed peoples’ consumption up and kept the economy going. Instead they are at risk of becoming thrown out into the low income slough on a really lousy dole or being forced to change account from the municipality town’s wage office to the social welfare office.

And the needs for the tasks the employed in the municipality are doing won’t disappear as said before.

So it will probably become the fired assistant nurses, children’s nurses, the teachers and home helps that have to step in and take care of their old tasks unemployed when the local governments service can’t afford it or haven’t time for it.

Why is the government doing this bizarre prioritizing? Have they misjudged the situation? Have they failed?

Hardly. This IS the bourgeoisie policy. This thesis the blog owner has developed together with another woman in an article linked here.

This is what Naomi Klein calls the prerequisites for Shock therapy?? A real or an caused crisis, where people in shock have nothing to put against.

But information is shock resistant as Klein also writes.

From another article "Bourgeoisie strategy": The refusal to intervene from the right government’s side isn’t due to lack of wisdom, but a logical consequence of the bourgeoisie political agenda.

The support for a commonly financed welfare is strong in the Swedish people. Too strong for the bourgeoisie parties to win sympathies on open talk of cuts and privatizations. But the right’s political agenda, that more and more of social security, nursing and care shall become financed privately hasn’t changed, only its rhetoric.

The bourgeoisie government has already made deteriorations in unemployment, health care and parental benefits.

At the same time many of the authorities which are the citizens’ immediate meeting with the welfare systems, as the employment offices and the regional social insurance office have gotten powerfully reduced subsidies and become reorganized from the bottom. The new, harder rules to get those benefits are hard to understand both for the citizens and the employed, people have to wait unreasonably long for payments and the staff is pressed to their utmost.

It’s natural that such a development leads to an increase in dissatisfaction and distrust against the common welfare systems. The ones that have opportunities will seek themselves to supplementing, private insurances to compensate for the deficiencies in the common systems. This is encouraged by the right government. The strategy is to create support for a gradually liquidation of the loyal, tax financed welfare systems through sabotaging them.

Warning bells are working full steam about an approaching welfare crisis and economists as well as local politicians are appealing to the government to intervene. But the secretary in charge says the municipalities have to prioritize. En clair this means that the government encourage to cuts in the school, child care, health care and geriatric care. At the same time as the safety systems and the authorities administering them are undermined; the government intend to let the school and health care collapse.

That the right government uses the economical crisis with the aim of carrying through a fervently coveted system shift becomes more and more obvious.

Local politicians, no matter what party, have the ungrateful job to cut the already hardly harassed welfare sector.

The government wash their hands and instead concentrates on creating laws and decrees favoring private alternatives for all our welfare. Thus the ring is raked for private health care companies and insurance companies taking over where the public have “failed.”

Instead of trying to get support for its privatization politics, through arguing, the government is prepared to sacrifice not only citizens health care but also the possibility for the staff in the welfare sector to carry their work through.

The government’s passivity under the ongoing recession isn’t about ignorance about what to do. What sort of visions does a government have that cut the taxes with 100 billion Swedish Crowns and encourages the local politicians to prioritize among sick, old and children? In fact it’s high time that the right government tells the Swedish people what it wants to carry through and they should become forced to argue for this.

So true!

I dislike this government from deep, deep in my heart.

The keyword is respect…

Unlikenesses to each other (or differences) in a relation can be stimulating – so long as one respects each other (mutually).

No dating-firms (businesses) pair a meat-eater with a vegan. But in real life love doesn’t make such considerations. Some people are even drawn to what’s different (or unlike).

“It’s a question of personality,”

a female Swedish psychologist says.

“People whom are fearless or daring in their attachment style can think differences are exciting.”

And by age you can develop more and more into that direction, from being quite cautious?

During the falling in love time (or phase) differences can even be charmy. It’s not until the hormones are calming down one starts to wonder.

“How will this function?”

You don’t use your “left brain half” when you are in love. No (or little) logic thinking is involved.

Therefore one needs to sit down and resonate:

“We are very different, how shall we handle this?”

If you can solve the problems together, communicate and have a good sex life most of these things will get fixed and function. The keyword is respect.

“The best is to accept that this person is in a certain way and learn to handle this.”

With time you adjust to each other. This doesn’t have to mean compromising yourself to death, but can on the contrary (on the other hand) mean that you broaden your mind ("widen your views" or "vidgar dina vyer" as we say here in Sweden)!

“Love is to compromise a little (on the same conditions and mutually). To get a good relation you need to preserve both your own self and adjust to each other. You shall not change yourself to please, but to discover new things and have fun together.”

“But sometimes a relation with someone who is the entire opposite of oneself is entirely precarious.”

“When the differences becomes too big it ends up with that you make things with other people (maybe entirely) than with your partner – and what sort of relation do you have then?”

Miller writes about our longing for true, genuine communication. Yes, that’s what we seek, even if we aren’t aware of it or are thinking in these terms??

Read here, here and here.