Democracy, the market, individuality…

A Swedish leader or editorial writer wrote about an affair in Sweden concerning people belonging to the Moderate Party buying votes to the Swedish Parliament:

“It’s not difficult associating to enterprises and entrepreneurs when the moderates in Stockholm are shaken by the scandal with bought members.”

What they have done is not least full of enterprise. Moderate candidates to the Parliament have simply tried to make long-term investments in a well paid job in the Parliament. A revision firm is involved in the investigation of the scandal. The step isn’t far away that the Moderates are introducing themselves on the market he thinks. Even if you shall not exaggerate the scandal the question returns if there isn’t an ideological component in the whole thing.

Because it’s about a party valuing the market higher than anything else and this party’s members would prefer that the politics move away as much as possible in favor for this market.

And in such a climate the democratic voice is hardly as sacred, as in other movements where the politics’ and democracy’s power are seen as more central.

Yes, are they in fact scared to death for democracy? If they get an opportunity they want to undermine it? In favor of themselves?

The democracy’s subversive formula is as follows:

One human being – one vote. This means that the low paid person’s voice is as much worth as the billionaire’s when they are voting.

However, in the market society it’s the billionaire who has the largest influence. But what happens if the billionaire uses his resources for buying votes?

Then the politics falls to pieces. The democracy is invaded by something for it alien to its nature: the power of money.

This is already the case in a country like Italy, where the media mogul Berlusconi is governing the politics with his money and his Medias.

We don’t have such a meltdown here yet. But the Moderate scandal in Stockholm has undeniably its idea political significances.

Another leader/editorial writer writes about the same scandal; that the electoral cheaters farthest in want to make the society entirely nonpolitical. It’s the “business concept” itself, that the representative democracy’s decision makers shall have as little influence over the society as possible.

It’s how the strict right has resonated ever since this country got universal suffrage.

And apropos the much honored individuality:

“Strange to say, we have gotten parties that are for an individuality that’s sticking out for their own personal sake, but now [in the politics] are promoting a vapid conformism [to gain votes].”

And are those who are preaching the individual (the neoliberals for instance) capable of treating individuals individually instead of lumping them together as for instance accusing people for being cheaters - all of them (in the welfare systems)?

Are they giving or have they given other people the same rights as they are demanding for themselves, and do they feel that they have the corresponding duties? Yes, you can wonder.

A Swedish blogger writes about an article about this affair with the heading saying something like “The confidence for the politics is becoming damaged.” The question is if t isn’t already substantially damaged, maybe because that this old type of party politics doesn’t work anymore.

Now with the European Union why shall one vote for politicians who don’t have so much to decide over because the real right to decisions lies somewhere else. But they can lift substantial fees and pensions. In some countries the members of the Parliament has juridical immunity – if such demands are coming to Sweden we really have to look up.

In the comments to the article some commentators try to come with the old waltz that the social democrats aren’t a bit better. As if cheating in one party apologizes cheating in another.

On a commercialized idol ideals era and being made invisible…

Stefan Sundström's homesite.

Said about the Swedish rock poet Stefan Sundström in a local Swedish newspaper:

“He pursues his own resistance movement in an era of commercialized idol ideals. He uses words set to music as the primary mean to tell about the lives and dreams of those who are made invisible [and whose voices aren't heard, voices that are maybe taken from them].”

Has the individualism made people lonely? And invisible?

What would good “individualism” be about? Respect (deep, genuine)for each individual?

Individualism, competition, escapism...

[Slightly updated/edited January 12]. The American director Courtney Hunt in an interview about her film ”Frozen River” said something in the style that:

“The big companies think stories like this one are too depressing. Instead products are produced attracting a big audience. Seen to what sort of films that sell best the American movie visitor prefer warnography rather than realistic descriptions of life, especially if they have a gloomy note.

There’s a strong movement of individualism; that we are all separate isles who can manage without ever asking each other or the authorities for help [False Power – denial of needs?]. I think we are going to become over flown with detached fiction, by the fantasy’s escapism.

It sounds hard, but I welcome an economic crisis. I hope it will give us a necessary understanding. It isn’t worth aiming at becoming rich to whatever prize and with all means, and it isn’t shameful being poor.”

Loud thinking: Does it has to be either/or? Can we be both individuals AND cooperate? Can we be both independent AND dependent? Can we be needing and other times not needing? Sometimes strong and other times weak? Does the one exclude the other? And if it does, why does it? Where are the roots?

Is this about contempt for weakness? Looking down on and despising weakness? Looking down on the not so perfect? What is perfectionism about?

Addition: See Miller on societal denial and traditional moral. And the reader's letter on her web stating that all physicians have been traumatized, first by their first caregivers and then during their education... Why they have reached this goal (this profession, with all which follows with it)...

I get so upset over the state of the affairs in the world and not least in our society so I don't find words, neither spoken nor written!!! But I write and talk nevertheless, though many times with blushing cheeks, over my language... Not over things like swearwords though, but over how I express things, and don't find the proper words or expressions...

Solidarity – to oneself, to other people, to the world, nature…

I baked Lucy cats yesterday.

[Slightly edited in the evening and updated December 3]. One of my bosses said on a meeting recently that he had read (or heard about) an investigation about people born in the nineties showing that those people are much more individualistic than any other generation. He didn't describe it as this individualism was something positive in my ears and feelings. My interpretation was that they are selfish and don't really care about other people. But has grown people always thought like this about the younger generations (with a self-ironic smile and a deep sigh).

These young people have a greater propensity for immediate satisfaction of their needs he said I think. They put themselves in the first place/room… If I remember right. They are (only) loyal to themselves.

Sidetrack: I also reacted at colleagues I got in the beginning of the nineties (colleagues coming directly from their education), colleagues who were born in the sixties (as our minister of education, whose ideas I don't like at all), they were so strict and authoritarian towards our students, sounded so totalitarian in their judgments! Yes, they sounded like this at least, it's maybe possible that they weren't really like this in practical work, I don't know.

I reacted at what my boss said, as if we just have to accept that young people are like this... And I also raised my voice on this meeting. Have thought further on this a little, among a lot of other things I have in my mind.

Does the one have to exclude the other? Can’t you be loyal both to yourself and to the community (so long as the community is really worth this of course)? Does the individual exclude the collective or vice versa? Can’t, and shouldn’t, the collective treat or meet, each individual with real, genuine, deep respect? And can't an individual feel loyalty towards a group, a community? So long as it is worth it, yes!?

Are those two opposites? Do they have to be? And if they are, why are they?

I try to imagine; if we managed to meet the child with true, genuine respect from the first beginning, in the first place, respect for its feelings, needs, reactions, expressions etc. wouldn’t that individual be capable of showing true, genuine respect to what is worth her or his respect? And make that person more capable of constructively dealing with difficult people, conditions etc.

I also came to think of John Cleese and one of the books he wrote with his therapist Robin Skinner, about leaders, more and less healthy ones. For instance what they had to say about Hitler and Stalin. I searched the book in my book cases and read quickly that they mean that Hitler belonged to the right-extremists and Stalin to the left-extremists briefly said!?

But I think I have to reread what they wrote better before I write more about it…

And I also came to think about shame again of some reason, as a raising method, even used (by people in the power) to steer adult people into things they otherwise wouldn't have agreed to or would have strongly protested against... Would it be possible steering people with shame if they had become better treated (truly respectfully treated) earliest in life?

The young people growing up during the former decade (the nineties), grew up during a time when the grown up world had less time for them; parents more occupied than ever, and there were less grown up people in school, because of the steel bath in the economy then...

There’s a lot at work now too… This was really quickly written...

Some quick reflections December 3: we have been told (encouraged) the last more then ten years at work to say what we think. Told not to talk in the corridors. But do people really - and if not why? Have they started doing this more? Or maybe even less? And the ones that are speaking up - how are they seen and/or met? Are they maybe exploding over states of affairs? And sensitive to not outspoken things? Is it a little "you shall but you shall not"? Which is one of the Master Suppression Techniques?

Being loved...

an expression of true individuality (from Poland-trip last week)?

The inability of really trusting and believing people saying they appreciate, like or even love you where does it come from? From a mom and dad who couldn't show true, genuine, unconditional love from deepest in their hearts? A love the very small child needed, but a love the adult shouldn't have to need.

Whose problem is that? Shouldn't they question their inabilities?

If they can't or won't do this work whose responsibility is this?

Many questions, but I think I know what I feel...

I would want to write about being forced to adjust, and to take too much responsibility too early, and the different results of that, later... Something I started to reflect upon when we walked there in a group in Poland last week...