(False or erroneous) claims of being for democracy…

[Slightly edited and updated February 24]. Anja on the blog Do nothing day writes in the blogposting "Now it is here at last" about a news paper that has started (or rather an old paper that has restarted or become reconstructed; a really needed counterweight to the almost dominant liberal and bourgeois press in Sweden today), something I thought was so well said, starting her post with quoting a journalist, Petter Larsson, when he writes that (in my free translation)

"...the political democracy – that the people are governing itself – demands economical and social equality to become real."

Anja reflects on this and writes (in my free translation)

“…this sentence summarizes a non bourgeois attitude, and the ideological ground on which the socialism and the social democracy rests. The idea that democracy is the inviolable, indivisible atom the society is [or ought to be] built up by – and this democracy demands equality to be working, to be a democracy in whole [If there is no or little equality it's no real democracy]. It says itself.

Democracy is built upon that all human beings have the same possibilities to exercise their democratic rights and duties. If a human being is in the point of an economically or socially weak (disadvantageous) position one easily lands in an unavoidable power relation to the ones having the superior (advantageous) position. This is pretty simple and easy to understand.

So the problem at the bottom, when the bourgeoisie wants to re-establish the society’s inequalities from the time before the democracy’s introduction in Sweden (before 1921) [as they are doing now, also see earlier posting on ‘The Neoliberalism and the school…’], is that the bourgeoisie never has been especially fond of the democracy-concept, something they have tried to pretend, however.”

And Anja points to another blogposting where “everything” the Moderate party in Sweden has been against is enumerated. Yes, also see the label contempt for weakness.

Addition February 24: Petter Larsson writes (a little freely):

”What we see now is how old, bad ideas have gotten a renaissance in an increasingly arrogant bourgeoisie./…/

When people are starting to be worn out (whacked) they are scolded for being cheaters, work shy and simulants and are chased to work [divide and rule/conquer, polarize people, play them out against each other; and that sort of leadership is unhealthy, not really sound]. And when people have fled from violence and oppression they have been sent back to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then it’s time to gainsay and formulate alternatives.”

Yes, how well said, what too many leaders and people in power positions (the ruling classes) show is arrogance, he said it! And also contempt for weakness, beating their breasts, as we say, or swaggering (blowing their own trumpets). And they don't hide it today. It's opportune showing this and saying these things out loud. And on top they pretend that what they do is "for our own good"! And play on many people's tendencies in this direction. The people doesn't now what their own good is!? As arrogant leaders know?? Quite ironically.

"Don't come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis!!!"

President Barack Obama in argument against the American (and Swedish) right's idea that tax cuts can take us out of the economic crisis.

Also see the article (in Swedish) “The Crusade Against the Welfare or the Swedish Elite’s Violent Revolt.”

Child abuse and politics…

sometimes I have thought we maybe should show our emotions so spontaneously as a small dog...

Alice Miller at page 28 in ”The Body Never Lies”:

“I call the violent kind of ‘upbringing’ abuse, not only because children are thus refused the right to dignity and respect as human beings, but also because such an approach to parenting establishes a kind of totalitarian regime in which it is impossible for children to perceive the humiliations, indignities, and disrespect they have been subjected to, let alone to defend themselves against them. These patterns of childhood will inevitably then be adopted by their victims and used on their partners, and their own children, at work, in politics, wherever the fear and anxiety of the profoundly insecure child can be fended off with the aid of external power. It is in this way dictators are born, these are people with a deep-seated contempt for everyone else, people who were never respected as children and thus do their utmost to earn that respect at a later stage with the assistance of the gigantic power apparatus they have built up around them

The sphere of politics is an excellent example of the way in which the hunger for power and recognition is never stilled.”

Morning wonders…

What are the politicians, for instance the school politicians, playing out? They are convinced that what they are doing is “for our own good”?

I don’t know if I am mirroring a father (my own?) and his attitude: the ones in power thinks that what’s done in school shall be (so) “useful.”

But what do we actually have use of later in life?

What are we learning in school? About ourselves and the world and other people? What are we taught in school about not only school-things but also about those things (ourselves, the society, world, the life, living, being alive and similar things), or - not least about those things?

How are our school politicians brought up? What’s coloring their views? Yes, once again, the most psychologically defended tend to lead?

How do they use their power? A power they “need”? Why do they need it? What sort of need for power is sound, healthy? Are all needs for power unhealthy, unsound?

Are they abusing it, by forwarding suppressed things on the rising generation (when it comes to for instance school, an issue I have been blogging about recently, triggered by the last Pedagogical Magazine I got and things I have read and feel and react at)?

Are they begrudging young people to stay alive (or to recover from being emotionally killed), to develop all their human potentials? I suspect they don’t, because they were robbed from this early in life, and they deny this fact. Which is sad (even tragic) for them, but is, mildly said/expressed, problematic in the power positions they have gotten now.

And another question is why do people elect such politicians? I think it’s because so many people in the world have the same experiences!? And then they applaud all sorts of harder grips, think discipline is needed etc.

Or is it a question of money? (Being without anything else to blame!!?) There are limited amounts of money in the society/world for for instance the school? But is that the truth actually? Quite ironically.

And there are limited amounts of money for a lot of other things?? Are there?

Neoliberalism is another religion, teaching, with its gurus!!?? Is it better than other teachings, religions? What has it caused? Has it made the world better?

The significance of childhood for how healthy the politics is that is practised – and is possible to practise…

When I was writing the recent blogposting about solidarity I came to think of something I read in one of the books John Cleese has written together with his therapist Robin Skynner “Life and How to Survive It” (the Swedish edition). I wrote a blogposting in Swedish about this.

First I want to add that I don’t believe in all their ideas on why people get psychologically ill, are having psychological problems or how to come to terms with them.

However, here I want to quote a little freely from the chapter about "changes for everybody."

Politicians dividing people in ”we” and ”them”, whom always need somebody to blame when things have gone wrong, aren’t really psychologically healthy.

They have less contact with the reality and their opinions are less gone through. Instead we are seeing their deep-rooted emotional attitudes (whom they maybe aren’t aware of).

On average they are more polarized, more prejudiced towards political opponents and thus less capable of seeing the whole picture and work towards the most reasonable compromises, as the soundest in every party are capable of.

Both Stalinists and Nazis were very authoritarian and totally paranoiac.

Differences, disunity and debate are important to be able to make proper political decisions, for they show the whole row of possibilities and through comparing and choosing among those we can make changes in consensus (without manipulation or brainwashing or anything: my comment).

See earlier postings about cults.

The soundest politicians have a lot of other interests in life besides the politics.

The sounder have less needs controlling other people. They are less interested in power for its own sake and more anxious or eager sharing it, as far as possible, giving power to other people in the society.

And when changes are desirable they try to bring those about through convincing people, instead of forcing changes on them. But again: not through manipulation. Sooner or less people will see manipulation through. And if they don’t we will see the results anyway; in a less good working society, workplace, family etc.

The people in the current system getting power are maybe the ones that least of all should have it. But the ones who ought to have the power are held back by the others, because that’s how our system is working. You obtain influence in a party by investing all your time and energy on it – something you are more apt to if you are obsessed by it and don’t have any other real interests.

Thus it’s the human beings whom have less on the side of politics, and the ones with the greatest power-hunger, who get disproportionate big influence and force the sounder and more moderate holding more extreme opinions than they should have otherwise. Which in turn increases the polarization further and conjure more extreme opinions up than most people usually would entertain.

The governing in Great Britain has largely consisted of foisting minority opinions on the citizens, with the result that a great part of the population don’t feel represented in the political process(es).

I wonder: Can this demoralize people? Create cynicism in the worst case and create cynicism if it continues a longer time?

The decisions that are working are the ones that are obtained through a thorough and open discussion where diverging opinions are welcomed and listened to, leading to a real and widely spread unity or in the worst case that decisions are taken by a management one feels is acting with the WHOLE systems best for its eyes.

A bit ironic: for our own good!!??

But this sounds a little as the Summerhill school!

One-sided (or badly supported: my addition) made decisions aren’t lasting. Instead of solving problems they maintain the sad processes in the political apparatus that makes so decisions never are what they ought to be, but always are an exaggerated reaction against the last one-sided decision. The result becomes an endless oscillation between extremes giving overcompensation for what you have lost on the earlier decision.

My comment: The ones that are governing are in many cases governing through dividing and ruling.

The result can become a society that is less sound, more authoritarian, more polarized and group-selfish.

My comment: Exactly what we are seeing.

The trick is finding people whom are less one-eyed.

My comment: why are people one-eyed? Why don’t we have healthier leaders? Or healthier societies?

If I use rhetoric people are paying back with the same coin and we don’t get anywhere. Only in the healthiest contexts we are safe/secure enough to encourage all becoming independent and to express what they feel.

Yes, as the meetings at Summerhill!?

A new leader style…

Yes, is it time for a radically new leader style? But are we going to get one, and not only trials in that direction in USA?

There has been a LOT of talk in the media about the election of a new president in USA, and here is something you could read in a local newspaper here yesterday about Barack Obama and his leader style:

“According to co workers Obama is known for his calmness and has therefore been called No Drama Obama. The coming president is expected to bring a leader style characterized by discussions and deliberation (betänksamhet) about. It’s a large contrast to Bush who is known for going on gut feeling.”

In the posting “Brave New World” the blog Do nothing day also wrote about leaders. That politicians with honest intentions (genuinely honest), i.e. those who aren’t out for the power in itself and for their own purposes of whatever kind, strive for agreement, to bring about cooperation, not to polarize or divide and rule. Something Obama seems to be more interested in than the leaving president. Obama seems to want to unite rather than to split.

But do we need saviors? And if so why? Is this a healthy sign that we have such needs?

I came to reflect over things yesterday in another blogposting "Capitalism and lack of freedom..." about a review of for instance a book by the professor in sociology Richard Sennett, and wonder if the reason to why more men are conservative and neoliberal is that more men (than women) are served by “the order of things” at least in short-term, an order we have had for thousand of years more or less. They don’t want to change this order, and definitely not as radical as would be needed? They would rather want to set the clock back many of them? Push the responsibility on someone else; their fathers and mothers in symbolic forms? Even if one asserts something else and does this with great emphasis. The greater the emphasis the more you have to convince yourself? But men looses on this, because they loose themselves in this deal!?

And “the market” is something many people in power positions want to push the responsibility on?? Very practical.

Because many don’t want to take responsibility for anything and not for themselves either? On the other hand they want to have power and rule the roost (vara herrar på täppan)?

Yes, it is as the psycho historian Bob Scharf writes in his essay "Leaders," the more defended tend to lead. And this is about leadership on all levels, from the micro to the macro level. From the family to being president for the United States of America???

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

Outmoded by the reality...

the work of beavers.

A Swedish writer, Maria-Pia Boëthius in a leader-chronicle:

Media is trying to make the debate apolitical, but she thinks this won’t be a successful strategy because the policy is on its way back. And this time not as entertainment – but as a necessity for life.

She wonders what the next bubble bursting will be. Presumably the blown-up entertainment industry, which during the mad-capitalism consumed “the most of it”: the policy, the literature, the societal debate and so on.

To make the debate apolitical and push it in the direction entertainment the Medias have employed a young, trend setting generation whose premier merit has been that it has cooperated with the power and Mammon.

The myth is that every generation is making revolt, but this Media-generation has “liked the situation” and been the power of assistance through uninterruptedly dramatizing the consumption and create debates, not least through attacks on different celebrities, half-celebrities and arrange distributions of prizes where they give each other prizes. What is their rebellion about? Against what? How?

In Sweden we have many established truths to get out of. One says that all political parties, except for maybe the left party – have accepted the market-economy. But now there is no consensus about what this market economy is or how it shall become designed in the future, so it is fairly uncertain what the parties actually are in agreement about. Boëthius thinks the parties don’t even know themselves.

She had heard an interview on radio with a sociologist from London School of Economics saying that we will now see nationalizing, socializing of – not only banks.

“Isn’t that leftish?”

the reporter asked.

And Boëthius was struck by the thought that she had never heard a public-service-reporter ask:

“Isn’t that rightist? Isn’t that neoliberal?”

in a challenging voice – as if public service instead of trying to be neutral make itself known as non-left.

The British sociologist laughed at the question and replied:

“If I had said that the British state would nationalize banks one year ago one had seen me as mad!”

The high-sounding empty phrases from media that “all political parties are alike” isn’t true she thinks. Does media has interests in that politics become that??

She thinks that politics is coming back, not as entertainment, but as a life necessity. And that the symbiosis between politicians and media is dissolving.

The experience-industry and the blown up entertainment industry suddenly seem outmoded and passed by the reality. The reality itself has shown to be far more dramatic than any manuscript-author could have thought out.

Needs and authoritarianism…

Max Weber and authority.

This morning I came to think of perverted, bottomless needs. Needs that never will get filled or satisfied, because they should have got filled then (in childhood).

How much money, power etc. you get they will never get filled, more than temporary. Money, power etc. can give temporary relief. But sooner or less you need new (or more) power, money…The original, justified needs have become perverted.

What has the hunger for power and money caused during history, and what does it continue to cause?

I thought of greediness, i.e. bottomless needs… What we see today in the world society. People think that the/this greediness isn’t entirely bad. That greed has driven people to achievements they wouldn’t otherwise show. I don’t really agree. Can’t there be drives of other kinds, that aren’t (at all) destructive or self-destructive?? I think there are, but maybe quite rare?

This is also, in a seemingly paradoxical way, denial of needs!!?? Denial of the early needs, while at the same permitting adults (perverted) needs. But it’s like this it has always been!!?? Allowing the adults needs and forbidding children’s. A phenomenon we are probably more or less blind to?? And more or less aware of. Maybe totally blind and unaware to in many cases, and some people are totally blind and unaware to it? And those are often the ones needing power and control, as much as possible??

Thought further: on Friday afternoon I had a long conversation about a lot of things, from this to that, with a person who is responsible for Rotary scholarships for young people. A young Swedish woman reflected over the difference between how Swedish children and adolescents are treated compared to how they were treated in the country she had visited on her year as holder of a Rotary scholarship. Things she had reacted at. Namely that parents (and teachers??) in the country she visited were quite authoritarian (mine, not her expression, she didn’t use this word I think). The parents simply said:

“You have to…!!” “You can’t do that!” etc.

And if the child/young person asked

“Why??” “Why not?”

The reply was simply

“Therefore!”

with no more explanations.

Obey and keep quite, don’t question anything!?? The parents’ words are the law?? And they are always right?? What about mutual respect and a real, genuine meeting/communication?

I thought further on this; about authoritarianism in a so called therapeutic circumstance (and also what Miller has written; that there are maybe as many ways to recovery as there are people in this world!! And the importance of maybe being aware of this and getting inspired by this too!). Just being given the message that your message (as subscriber to a list in this case) has been received, but not posted on the forum, because the moderator trusted her gut-feeling (??). And no explanation why… Isn’t it exactly the same as above? And maybe also a repetition of an early experience perhaps? I wonder how recovering this is?? And if it has harmed people??