On earlier days' statare or agricultural laborer receiving allowance in kind - and the superclass then and now…

We don’t really believe in getting together to fight for things (together) in this society (we are solely individualists and not dependent on other people, neither on good nor on bad things other people do)?

At least we grassroots don't any more, we don't group as we did? Because we don't need it? Don't we?

But see about the power elites and the superclass below. They get together and group (but how? But that's another thread and discussion)!

Instead the individuals (some at least) try to make their voices heard entirely on their own. Individuals are screaming their voices hoarse? In an ocean of screaming voices are anybody really heard? Or whose and what voices are heard? Some have quite cynically given everything up. Or given up in a feeling of powerlessness (even if this feeing isn’t actual always).

And what about whistle blowers? Individuals daring to speak up (on their own) with no support and no backing?

Can individuals (genuinely autonomous, i.e. genuinely independent) exist in (a healthy) collective? Yes, I think that is possible. But in less healthy systems (group, political party, country etc.) there is an either/or, not a BOTH individual AND collective (and what is true, genuine individuality? Is individualism this? Can so called "individualism" be a disguised standardization? Practical for the power? Is individualism the same as being your true self, being personal, truly, genuinely unique?)?

Back 30-40 years many young people lived in collectives, some even with kids and families. But today those living in those collectives don’t believe in ANY collective solutions!? Yeah, maybe for very good reasons? Or?

Some say

“We have to trust people!”

At the same time people are not trusted! People are said to use the systems for instance. And thus we can’t trust anybody? And the people that are working hard are punished too for those misusing systems and things. A kind of collective punishment.

Think if one could move to an isolated island somewhere and get away from all this!?

Yes, some have said that you can trust too much AND too little.

Why can’t some people trust maybe at all?

And what about those trusting too much?

How was it in older days with people falling behind chairs? If a child lost both his/her parents and if it had no relatives? Who took care of those? Who saw so they got food and shelter? If a child was born disabled what did this mean? This child became a heavy burden to its parents a whole life?

If you couldn’t support yourself you had to rely on other peoples’ kindness and good will? Were all people in the society kind and good people helping the help needing? Were it the ones with most resources (in form of wealth, health, money) who helped those incapable of taking care of themselves because of low age, because they were disabled maybe already from they were born?

The one with less resources were they the ones that least of all cared?

Who cared less and contributed less is my silent wonder?

How often did infanticides occur because a child was born disabled because it would mean a too heavy burden for a family? How did one treat old people who were of no use anymore?

Who took care of people needing care (the truly, genuinely weak) of any kind? They could founder? And often foundered?

Children (especially to poor people) were auctioned off (for instance because one or both parents had died and they had no relatives who could take care of them) less than 100 years ago here, I think, to the ones taking them for less money. Like they were livestock. And they were also workers in the families where they landed, thus actual livestock (and child workers exist in this word today. And it existed during the 60's). Yes, they were workers at a very early age.

According to a now 29 year old woman the institutions she grew up in were better than (ELEVEN different) foster homes (in which she got abused, for instance sexually). So families paid for taking care of children aren't always so good today either! Institutions seem to be better according to this young woman. But institutions were bad here earlier too (and not so long ago).

Less than one hundred years ago (I think even to around 1940!!) we had agricultural laborer receiving allowance in kind. They had nothing else to sell than their workforce. And it wasn’t valued highly… They were tied to their employer, till they were of no use anymore. Totally in the hands of the good will of their master and the landowner (earlier days superclass, though those days "superclass" had limited power compared to the superclass today?).

Some women sold their bodies (women are doing this still), because they had nothing else to sell (they believed?) or nothing else to trade.

How did earlier societies take care of those needing care?

Also see about the truck system:

“A truck system is an arrangement in which employees are paid in commodities or scrip rather than with standard money. This limits their ability to choose how to spend their earnings—generally to the benefit of the employer. As an example, scrip might only be able to be used for the purchase of goods at a 'company store' where prices are set artificially high.

While this system had long existed in many parts of the world, it became widespread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as industrialization left many poor, unskilled workers without other means to support themselves and their families. The practice has been widely criticized as exploitative and similar in effect to slavery, and has been outlawed in many parts of the world. Variations of the truck system have existed world-wide, and are known by various names.”

The earliest coins were used already in old Greece.

Also came to think about the power elite(s), and the super class and oppression (the elites are getting together, grouping, while we grassroots are divided and ruled) and also about being obedient and keeping quiet ( and private egoism).

From an earlier posting (about the super class):

We had thralls or trälar (slaves) too here in Scandinavia, for instance during the Viking-era. And later people were held as thralls, but in another sense. They weren't literally in villenage, but still villains in many senses.

Apropos the book ”Superclass; The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” by David Rothkopf a commentator on a blog wrote about oppression, here my a little free translation and additions:

“One can scream oneself blue and it doesn’t matter or make any difference. But remember that the power, the oppression is dependent on psychology to a large degree. It’s dependent on that there are enough stupid people. Not unintelligent, of course, but self-righteous and dumb (foolish, stupid).”

The blog-owner replied:

“Of course you are right, and do you know this is also what David Rothkopf points out, he means that it’s ‘smooth’ for the superclass to govern so long as the voters in the democracies don’t take their responsibility and inform themselves so they can vote rationally.”

Yes, the power has interests in that the people under them don’t!?

For instance, we should all be interested that all people got enlightened! That all had good schools for instance, and had the same chances getting good education, with well-educated teachers (in all respects).

How do we deal with power abuse for instance? Do we deal with this individually?

Thoughts during a quite hectic morning April 23 (dentist and hairdresser): My maternal grandfather worked full time as chauffeur (car, truck and bus) and had one week off (vacation) each year, at most. And long workdays. They (he and my grandmother with four kids) also supported themselves with having cows, and sometimes a pig and hens I think. This meant that he had to get up early in the morning, start a fire so the house got warm, go out and feed the cow(s), milk it (them), and then go to work. When he came home he had to milk the cow again and give it food. In the summer he had to see so he had hay for he cow over the winter.

Today the pressure on people is different than it was then.

But people got exhausted then too, but it was called with other names?

Was he there for his kids? For his wife? For himself?

Is there a perfect system? With all harmed people in the world what is the less imperfect system? So most people can survive, and live decently.

And why are some people weak? Were they born this way? Do we have to take care of them? Or not or in what way? Can they founder?

I am on the weak peoples' side...

Addition April 25:
People lining up in South Africa to vote. All haven't been allowed, haven't had the right to vote and some had more votes than other people during history, and it looks as there exist compulsory voting too (you are not free to vote or NOT vote if you don't want to!! You HAVE to vote! Is that freedom or democracy?). How is it in the world today in those respects? My maternal grandmother was 27 when she got the right to vote on the same premises as men. My paternal grandmother was 35 then.

Cynicism...

“Cynicism, the term has several different meanings. The most popular meaning aim at an almost cold (callous) outlook on life (maybe even free from illusions and a belief on the worst concerning mankind). It can even allude to just seeing the human being and/or the society as it is, without having an effect on accepted or conventional norms. The latter meaning is actually more correct when the term utmost originates from the Cynics in ancient Greece which didn’t advocate frigidity but independency and self-control. One of the most well-known cynics were Diogenes from Sinope.”

”…for a propagandist [also see here on propagandist] like [Johan] Norberg it must be great that a lot of people believe what he is paid to make them believe.

The considerably more interesting question about what political economical system which is the best for most people he and his soul mates aren’t concerning themselves with of explainable reasons. They bravely fight further on the power’s side and for the power’s sake, an always equally admirable fight [Kerstin, commentator on Esbati's blog].”

”So if the tea bag revolution this week doesn’t succeed maybe Norberg pushes off over the puddle and helps the Americans or in any case Wall Street getting their freedom back [Lennart, commentator on Esbati’s blog].”

”The more and more desperate republicans are trying to revolt against president Obama through organizing ‘tea parties’ now just before taxation day April 15.

‘Tea Bagging’ refers back to the Boston Tea Party 1773 that is seen as the starting point for the American Revolution against the Englishmen. The American settlers in Boston refused to accept the taxes on tea because they hadn’t been allowed to decide about them.

With other words the republicans want to start a national revolution towards president Obama and his government in protest against his trials to solve the catastrophic economical crisis here in USA. Talk about extremism!

But one can’t be really sure where one has those extreme republicans. Maybe it’s only about sex here, something the republicans and their nucleus squads in the Christian Right never have learned to handle [from the blog ‘Det progressiva USA’. My addition: WHAT phenomenon (maybe one should be careful saying 'who' quite ironically!??) caused the catastrophic economical crisis? And WHO have to pay for it (quite ironically)? Who are going to suffer most from this crisis? The wealthiest, i.e. the ones which after all have (financial and economical) margins? Or the man on the street? Small entrepreneurs etc.? Who are 'punished' for it? And who are maybe unfairly blamed for it (the man on the street)? And who are defended and protected?]."

The indifference as hidden violence - on social dilution…

the beauty of the nature (photo: S. Thomas).

One of the chapters in Wikström’s book has the title “The indifference as hidden violence – on social dilution.”

There he writes that many seem to have a proper job finding themselves. They are working hard on finding themselves.

Too many reference points are in constant movement. New ideals come and pass in a few weeks. The compass needle isn’t even spinning. It has disappeared.

The share of time people see real persons seem to be shorter and shorter compared to the time occupied with ‘social’ relations with people one don’t know except via media.

And this is tragic, and all too common? But why is it like this?

Since the human being is playing together with more and more people (all TV-series’ different gestalts not to forget) at the same time as she meets them during more fleeting spaces of time a social dilution occurs. When the human being – as a pure survival instinct – is thinning her relations to other people out, it becomes the more important to cultivate her own inner being. My addition: maybe needed too?

He writes further about something I think is interesting: passivity constitutes hidden violence. Many people distance themselves from physical violence in words. In the next moment they show that they assuredly want but cannot manage to get into other peoples’ sufferings. Maybe the present time’s wealthy north-European is witnessing the sort of cruelties that in the future will be seen as as barbaric as the abuse of women seem for us today: the leaning back indifference.

But is it the people in power, with most resources, who do something, are taking responsibility? Or who are they working or even fighting for? Who are trying to take the burden on their shoulders instead? Even though they have just a fraction of the money and power other people have. Who take the guilt on them? Who are accusing themselves for being indifferent, selfish, thinking only on themselves, and who are not?

It’s not a social construction; women and children in Africa are starving to death by actual undernourishment, while people in the rich world are buying bigger and bigger and more gasoline consuming SUVs. This is called omission sin. Embarrassed he writes this to himself too (though I am not sure he owns a SUV!).

Maybe it’s so that those same persons whom once upon the time were eating lentil soup, stood on the barricades and accused the big companies for arrogance now are members of the cigar smokers club or the fountain pen’s association. Large-eyed kids are seeing their parents betraying their old youth ideals:

“Not even they are caring, why should we then?”

They (those parents) are showing the arrogance and cynicism they reacted at once?

Showing moral pathos is seen with suspiciousness:

“Wasn’t the 68-generation a little overstrung? Look at the big golf bags they are conveying to Arlanda now [airport outside Stockholm] and what sort of wines they are tasting in Toscana!”

Consumism, entrepreneurship, profit maximizing, Neoliberalism and market powers, buy and sell are code words. They are seldom called in question.

So the questions return – who sees the weak and try to do something – commonly and long-term. Where are the models whose pathos apply to other people, to the ones that cannot manage, cannot afford or aren’t strong?

Who are showing placards where it is written that how positively a person even thinks about himself there is fragility in the existence/life nobody can turn away from? The tragedy comes sooner or less.

Then “if you want a thing done well, do it yourself” isn’t true or the solution, but the human being is entirely in the hands of other people. So who liberates and canalizes the engagement potential (many people are only interested in their own personal projects entirely, are only seeing themselves?? And why?)?

See Arthur Silber in his essay "The Indifference and Denial that Kills" . I also searched on the obedience culture on Silber's blogg and got this hit.

Contentment contra dissatisfaction…

Here and there one sees tendencies to scorn people who are truly feeling well, having it good and being happy Wikström thinks. The ones capable of sitting on a park sofa or bench enjoying life, being relaxed, whistling.

Contentment being in glaring contrast to the dissatisfaction’s culture building on something that all the time has to be taken care of because it isn’t good enough – it can be everything from body, home, partner, garden, kitchen or age – everything has to get through a make-over.

The conception that the human being isn’t good enough as she is has in itself become a profitable business concept. To begin with creating dissatisfaction first is the prerequisite for attracting us to buying different services or commodities which in turn shall cure the anxiety you have created in the first place.

Actually this is nothing new.

Everyday life isn’t a natural flow of things just happening, rolling on and passing further. Rather it’s about a lot of mini-projects. Those projects have to become prepared, then made and at last evaluated. There is often also a product or service said to solve the problem. This constant dwelling on different alternatives creates a longing for simple advices. Through those one is searching ways out from this/the age’s confusedness.

In the early 21^st century it seems as it isn’t the body that is the problem. Rather it is the self-image that has become a problem. When the identity has become vague and floating, and most boundaries are rubbed out, it’s up to each one of us to form – or why not buy – a self-image (from where comes this diffuse self-image? Exploited and misused). Great psychological efforts are made to get oneself a clear(er) self-esteem via clothes, poses, journeys, styles, language, and gestures.

The shame that you aren’t happy leads to accusations of oneself, unless everything isn’t disguised in diffuse bodily symptoms. However, after all it is more accepted being burnout and stressed to pieces than being a failure (unsuccessful).

Endless needs for self-help books, with everything from Dr Phil, Wayne Dyer or “good old” Benjamin Spock. Through tangible advices the human being is offered easy ways (quick fixes) through the present age’s longing for the successful life. The self-help books offer the perfect illusion: that all everyday problems are solvable. And if people don’t become happy, fail etc. they accuse themselves (even more maybe).

What does this have with goodness to do? Maybe in this way: The amount of alternatives the human being is constantly exposed to – in purpose to making her/his life better – is making the strength left for people (being with them, caring for another person etc.) smaller and diminished. The human being has a certain amount of psychological energy at her/his disposal. If then big parts of the power she has is occupied with the time it takes pondering over the ocean of alternatives available and the choices she constantly has to make to maximize the “withdrawal” from this life, yes, then she gets less powers and strengths over for paying attention to other people and even less for helping.

And people who has nothing “to give”, people who are uninteresting or hard, those demanding attention or who are depressed, the ones disturbing one’s own time – those you aren’t able to manage or deal with.

Calling the self-realization as the most important norm in this era in question (or certain forms of it) is like swearing in the church. And yet; the anxiety is increasing, loneliness is increasing, many people seem not even to be present in their own lives, their gazes are shifting.

The self has become a project (not always to the best?). Adolescence is trying new identities. But the problem is that this construction of identity is never ended, it continues high up in ages. On top it demands more and more energy and has to become renegotiated constantly. My addition: you can wonder why we are so confused, what lies in the bottom. And it can be a good thing when people can develop (and change, within limits though too) all their lives too. But, as maybe a lot of other things, the focusing on oneself can become too much and unsound?

Wikström thinks the collective identity-generators have become made more and more suspicious. Everything collective is suspicious.

Then a lot depends/hinges on the individual’s own creativity and strength. And why are some more creative and strong than other people is my wonder?

Wikström thinks this is on good and bad. The confidence on the individual’s possibilities is enormous. A strong individualism linked to optimism certainly creates creativity and success in a few, the ones with strong personalities, who grew up in stable environments. Dandelion children (as we call them) have always been there, but their successes belong to the exceptions. And the talk about “being your own happiness’s blacksmith” (as we say) becomes cynical for the ones whose life is descended into a social room where class, gender or ethnic conditions constitute the main reason for ones misfortune or destitution.

Cynicism and moral…

We have been told (brainwashed with the propaganda) that all people are misusing the systems. The ones in the highest positions in the society have shown little or no moral or solidarity when there has been financial crisis the last almost two decades.

In many people this leads to resignedness and dejectedness:

“What can one do? You can’t do anything!”

This dejectedness in turn leads to cynicism in (too) many people.

“If all other people do, why shouldn’t I?”

and that’s bad and dangerous? How is this for the whole system and the world?

But from where does these feelings stem actually?

Is it the child’s hopelessness? The child’s feelings that it had no options? Feelings of powerless and helplessness? And the child didn’t have any options; it just HAD to find itself in her/his situation. But an adult usually have much more options. Some therapists for instance mean that we have options where we don’t believe we have (also see here about Past Reality Integration Therapy). But those feelings say something about our childhood and the helplessness then. Things we haven't gotten the opportunity or help to integrate.

In some people it just leads to dejectedness (a sort of paralysis and a feeling that it’s no idea trying to change anything, because everything is beyond my power) and in others to a cynicism:

“If other people, why can’t I…?”

People who are less harmed react differently? They act on things and do this in a more constructive and efficient way?

That "the power" is abusing its power (wherever it occurs) is no excuse for other people to do the same I think. Who shall set good examples? And that we have been abused once is no excuse either for us abusing other people or systems I think.

And this (strong) tendency in many people (because of their early history) is also used (quite cynically and deliberately) by propagandists walking the power's errands!? The phenomenon of polarizing and splitting people in dividing and ruling. Also something we were taught early in life by our parents probably, who used this method to make their children obedient and submissive.

Freedom, autonomy, arrogance, cynicism, xenophobia, societal approval, and needs...

[Slightly edited in the evening and a little February 24, seeking, searching the words]. Quickly some notes thrown down.

On my walk this morning I thought on the notion “freedom”… What is this about? What should it be about?

I also thought on the notion autonomy, and further on arrogance and cynicism.

Miller has written about autonomy, for instance in “The Drama of the Gifted Child” (in my translation from the Swedish edition):

“A patient with ‘antennas’ for the unconscious in the therapist will immediately react on this [the therapist's needs of another, weaker person’s childish dependency on him/her]. He will quickly ‘feel’ autonomous and behave in this way if he notices [on a conscious or unconscious way] that it is important for the therapist getting autonomous patients with a secure behavior quickly. But this ‘autonomy’ ends up in depression [sooner or later], because it isn’t genuine.”

I think she is right. Many (all) patients seeking help are used to filling other persons' (parents', caregivers' and their substitutes') needs. Actually the patient isn't to blame for being stuck in depression. But many patients tend to blame themselves, blaming themselves for being failures, impossible.

Miller also writes about manipulative measures concerning depressive patients, and the vicious circle of contempt showing in too many helpers too...

She also writes,about autonomy (in the same book):

“The difficulties to experience and develop own genuine feelings results in a permanent bond that makes a demarcation [liberation] impossible./…/ …the child hasn’t gotten the opportunity to develop an own security.”

And this is often met with contempt for weakness, not empathy or understanding/enlightenment about the roots to this state. Too often also from so called helpers, such as therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists. And thus the person in question is stuck in shame and becomes even more tied up, even more unfree.

Contempt for weakness and instilling shame.

I also thought about needs, bottomless needs, originating in the child’s unfulfilled early needs. And those needs can never become filled afterwards, but you can acknowledge and recognize them and maybe grieve them and then be capable of filling you adult needs… Instead of the childhood needs. Trying to fill our childhood needs always causes problems, bigger or smaller.

It’s important that you don’t belittle or minimize what happened though, or rather this is even crucial for recovery to occur.

What we see (and have seen through history) are needs (for power and wealth) need that are never fulfilled, expressed in different ways, more or less violent. Persons never getting satisfied. And this is nothing we are born with is my true conviction, but has a reason.

Miller also writes about directing our anger (and other feelings) at scapegoats (symbols, symbolically dealing with early things), something that will never liberate us. Only of we direct those feelings at the true and original causes we will become liberated. Which doesn't say that any of this is easy, unfortunately. So if we could prevent this...

Yes, it’s this with xenophobia too… See for instance the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus and fascism (“Hitler and Hatred”), and about societal approval… See earlier posting on Pincus on terrorism. And also see earlier postings under the label bigotry.

Yippee! I loose my job – or For my Own Good…

from Christmas fair (market).

In a leader the Swedish writer Johan Ehrenberg writes that sometimes you read things making you understand that those saying there only exists one world are wrong. It has to be many parallel worlds, at least ONE globe more seen to how some are resonating.

Björn Lindgren on The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise says:

“The one loosing her/his job is forced doing something about her/his situation, which becomes a boost or a big step forward!“

Or:

“Half of those losing their jobs are winning on the wave of notices [losing their jobs].”

Is he living on another planet than we other people? Ehrenberg wonders. See earlier posting on working life (in Swedish).

On this planet a security-sickness is ruling, with people not understanding their own best and people don’t daring or caring to move further. How good that there are companies wanting to fire people so something good can happen to them!

Because, you know, all problems are individual problems! You are the problem yourself and you are the solution yourself.

My comment: Yes, of course we have responsibility for ourselves each of us!!! But how is it actually with taking responsibility? And how about golden parachutes (fallskärmsavtal)?

If you try to tell such an ideologist that half of those notices (varsel) are leading to tremendous personal troubles and those who are said to ”become happy” by being fired in fact should have been capable of changing both jobs and direction of work and life anyway, this is like shouting right into nowhere.

They just can’t understand this. Because their ideology makes them blind. Do they understand what the word “freedom” means?

Freedom is being able to choose things yourself, being able to change your life because you want to. Being able to choose between different jobs and not – because of the fear of loosing your incomes - becoming tied up with what is there.

Because the reason why people don’t change jobs is due to insecurity. Not because of security.

The freedom The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise is describing is something entirely different.

It is being forced under threat, a change somebody is forcing upon you. Not freedom. As individual you have to “do the best of the situation” (of course), i.e., try thinking positively and move on. But to draw the conclusion that being fired is GOOD is to live on another planet.

Our government is saying that the finance market in the bottom is sound… Our prime minister is the last fundamentalist among the ruling? He recently said something about corrections in the market, something in the style that if people don’t ask for Swedish cars, there has to be corrections in the market. I don’t know… There are many statements that are really confusing! Because people (in for instance the ones with power) don’t know hat they are actually talking about, they are drive by forces they have denied and suppressed early? And we are used to confusions from early in life many of us more or less, so we are more or less lacking capacities to see confusions and contradictions through really??

July 2003, thus 5 years before the crisis, according to the archives, a Bernie Saunders wondered in the American congress, what world Alan Greenspan is living in! If he had any clue or idea what was going on or happening outside the finance-institutes marble-walls (see John Cleese and Robin Skinner on having interests besides politics/work). About Bernie Saunders see here.

Saunders said something in the style that he was worried because he didn’t think Greenspan understood what sort of needs the middle and working class families have. Instead he thought Greenspan only saw as his duty to represent the wealthy people and the big corporations. He suspected that Greenspan simply doesn’t know what is happening out there in the real world. Greenspan was at this time talking about a growing economy…

Saunders tried with saying:

"But the last three years we have lost three million jobs in the private sector. The long-term unemployment has become three folded. 1, 4 million people have lost their health insurance. Millions of pensioners can’t afford medicine. The middle class can’t send their children to college."

Greenspan replied:

”We have the highest living standard in the world.”

“Not at all,”

Saunders replied.

“Look at Scandinavia, where the citizens have considerably higher living standard when it comes to education, health care and jobs where they are decently paid.”

Greenspan:

“But we have the highest living standard for a country of this size at least.”

But what country did he compare the USA with? Indonesia maybe? Or maybe Brazil? Pakistan? Bangladesh?

And economical experts are wondering how things could turn out as they have.

Also read "Dominic Lawson: In a hidden corner of the EU, defenceless children are suffering unimaginable cruelty."