Visar inlägg med etikett superclass. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett superclass. Visa alla inlägg

4/22/2009

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.

3/30/2009

What sort of self image – and self-esteem? On bonus and compensation scandals…

illustrating this with a nice old church bench, maybe not so comfortable to sit on, which was the purpose? :)


[A little edited and updated]. On Friday morning three people in a panel in a sofa in Good morning Sweden were talking about what had happened the previous week. For instance about bonus scandals here in Sweden concerning AMF and Folksam. AMF is administering retirement money for people and Folksam is an insurance company.


What they said is true for companies of all kinds all over the world. And it's maybe (probably) even worse in other bigger countries than Sweden.


In the panel, a man, Birger Schlaug, wondered (a little freely):

“What sort of self-image do those people have, when they take so many management commissions on them? Do they believe they are supermen [to different degrees? See about hubris]? Or do they have an enormous need to prove how clever they are [both to themselves and other people]? You take on those commissions pretty much like decorations to show how important you are?”

Here is Schlaug's blog (in Swedish).


Another man, a leader writer, wrote in a leader about motives for those sky-high compensations, about especially clever, competent and smart - men, something in the style "The Grounds to Hypocrizy. Ehrenberg examining the Great Mistake"…

The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise’s outlook on man is that it is a certain elite, especially smart and clever/competent men that are demanded. Those are standing high above ordinary employees, fighting in entirely other divisions, and to protect the employees’ retirement money the labor unions have to accept, bend and bow and pay what is demanded.


The problem is neither that the CEO:s of Folksam or the former CEO of AMF are especially intelligent or over smart persons. They are salaried employees, good at organizing and delegating./…/THERE ARE NO SUPERMEN! And nobody is irreplaceable.”

No - and this is exactly what so many exhausted (not least women) have heard!


A female journalist in the article "Whom can we trust. Boëthius: Now the opposition has to rethink things":

“They earn a lot, they say, because of their heavy responsibility. However, this responsibility is now called in question.”

With all rights?


In another article you could read:

“However, the ones at the top in trade and industry as Göran Thunhammar and Urban Bäckström get through the criticism gallantly since they have no moral capital to loose. The capitalism is like that.”

And in another article “Time for a new world order” you can read:

“We consume to solve social and psychological problems, not practical [problems]./…/


The numbers of suicides are increasing in the material welfare.”

They write further that robots can’t be used everywhere. Culture, health care and other “soft parts” of the society then stand out as more and more expensive. This phenomenon is well-known and has gotten the name the Baumol Effect after the American William Baumol, who described the puzzling fact that the richer the society the less theater you can afford.


In the Swedish Wikipedia article you can read about the Baumol Effect that culture production can’t become more effective. To perform a play by Shakespeare or a music piece by Beethoven the same amounts of work and the same competence is needed now as when those pieces were written. I don’t know, maybe even more, because the high demands today? And everything we can compare with, all that is already written…


And on top, I don’t think that your efficiency (OR creativity, i.e. your capacity to solve problems for instance) can become especially high if you work six days a week or more and all your awoken time year after year with no breaks or any recovery, something a commentator on a blog referred to. But maybe that doesn’t matter for those highest up? The most important for them is that they can show or assert that they have been working all their awoken time.


And who have the greatest workload in fact? Quite ironically.


And some people are living in entirely other spheres… What are they fighting about compared to how other people have it in the world I wonder with a deep sigh.


I can’t help wondering what all those people have in their backpacks, what their inner drives are… Are they trying to fill bottomless needs? Trying to fill needs they should have gotten filled earlier and in other ways?


Yes, the most (psychologically) defended tend to lead.


And about work life in general; do we make a better job today and feel more satisfied than we did earlier? Are we happier? Do we laugh more and have more fun at work? Or less? Personally I think we have less fun and it seems as many people around me don't really get on well with their work or workplaces.


"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed" (T. Szasz?. See more about him here and quotes here.).

9/07/2008

The superclass and oppression…

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 villeins 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, who 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). I.e., that we all pay taxes for this or contribute.


But it isn’t only a question of money; that we for instance pay for other people’s children (even if we don’t have any own kids), but not least that we don’t want competition on equal terms!!?? I don't have own kids unfortunately and I come from a well-educated family... From the middle-class and maybe not the lowest either. Something you maybe don't see (self-irony)??


And by the way, it feels to me as people use the systems how high or low taxes they even pay. I even get the impression that people use it more (and even much more) in those countries where the taxes are lower… I don’t know if it has with a “national character” to do. :-) I think people are alike all over the world from the beginning though.


However, in some countries people seem to be more loyal to the system - still? But the power has interests that people stop being loyal to it??? They use the method divide and rule more or less consciously. People are played out against each other. And they let the (invisible) power play them out against other people!?


I draw this even further to how it probably was in the family, what many of us all over the world, in all countries and cultures, have in our backpacks (things many had to suppress ad deny and pass to oblivion, and it’s the ones in most denial who needs the power the most!? Once again I think the psycho-historians are right about that the most defended tend to lead, and that power exists as a defence); parents playing out their kids against each other to keep being in power, being the “authority”… As if they should need this??? Can’t they earn it in other ways? More naturally so to say or how one would express this.


And siblings who aren’t exposed join their parents to avoid becoming exposed to the parents’ treatment. Something the therapists Jean Jenson and Ingeborg Bosch have met with clients in therapy. Who painfully and with difficulties have discovered exactly those things; how siblings joined the scorning of them for instance. It’s the same, or the similar, phenomena in the adult world, for instance in politics?? We re-enact things there whether we are aware or want it or not. Where for instance media join the power so they get the feeling that… I don’t know…


There is no true indignation or fury from people in the media for instance. Or those who show indignation or fury are very few, so we hardly notice them, and they don’t get as much space in media as other people get. I wish there were more courageous people in the world. Yes, people with more civil courageous!? I.e. people with more “heart”!


See more about divide and rule, in English and in Swedish, about backward psychoclasses.