Isn't a huge barrier to finding a new direction through structural change from the top the fact that the hands of governments are often (usually? always?) tied by the 'haves' who, I assume, are reluctant to give up their position of privilege and their wealth. 'I'm alright Jack, don't rock the boat!'
Perhaps a starting point is to acknowledge that the ability of
we 'ordinary' folk to influence governments through the vote is pretty
limited. Power resides away from the ballot box.
I can't really envisage a society where leaders of corporations, bankers, financiers and the rest would willingly give up their opulent consumer-based lifestyles to build a 'better' life for us all. Is their evidence in human history of mass change being brought about by the 'haves' giving up any of their goodies so that the poor can pulled out of poverty?
In earlier days, before resource depletion and environmental degredation, the poor could be pulled out of poverty without damaging the luxurious life of the rich, but life in the 21st century is very different. Because of planetary resource depletion and environmental degredation wont it be necessary for those living a luxurious lifestyle in 'developed' countries to give up some of the luxury if all of the potential 10 billion world population are to have their basic material needs met?
So, I'm not holding my breath that governments will bring about the necessary change. I'm putting my faith in people power. There's lots of really good and exciting stuff going on out there ...
"Is their evidence in human history of mass change being brought about by the 'haves' giving up any of their goodies so that the poor can pulled out of poverty?"
ReplyDeleteOne springs to mind. In Libya, leaders embarked on a massive public infrastructure project, building roads, bridges, universities, schools, hospitals, houses, fresh water distribution systems, all paid for using the national oil wealth and the credit of the nation via the state owned central bank.
Of course Libyan leaders could have kept the nations wealth to themselves, like royals and elites in Saudi Arabia where 40% of the population live below the poverty line. But Libyan leaders chose to provide a better standard of living for their people, free housing, free education and free healthcare were just the start.
Love him or loath him, Gadaffi promised every Libyan would be living in a house before he would move his parents from their Bedouin tent.
Prior to the NATO bombardment all Libyans lived mortgage and rent free – they owned their own homes outright.
Interestingly, in 2011 I found a team of Libyan journalists in London filming for an investigative report on homelessness – a huge problem in the English capital but one which the Libyans could never understand.
When there are people without homes, plenty of land on which to construct affordable housing, materials lying idle in the builders yards, bricklayers and other trades out of work, in what way can ‘we’ not afford to house everyone in the UK?
Some of the tremendous acheivements in Libya include:
Free health care: if an operation was not available within the country, the patient was flown abroad for treatment and Libyan government picked up the entire bill, including travel and board for the patient’s family.
Free education: Libyan students choosing to study abroad would get their university fees and living expenses paid for by the Libyan government.
Tax: income tax was 15% for everyone apart from farm laborers and agricultural workers who paid no income tax. VAT was 0%
Government subsidies: Fuel, food and even car purchases were subsidized and promoted by the Libyan government.
The Libyan government would also make available a $50,000 interest free loan to newly married couples to assist in starting their family life.
Of course all this is now gone. Had the truth about this generous welfare state ever made it to western TV screens or newspapers, we may have asked our leaders why the same could not be provided for us. That’s something that our leaders could never allow. This is just one of the reasons we bombed the country for months, destroying the Great Man Made River project, numerous hospitals, universities, public broadcasting facilities, private homes and the lives of countless innocent civilians, all justified by the Orwellian concept of Responsibility to Protect. In truth, our leaders and military have a responsibility to protect the earnings of the big banks (HSBC took over the running of the Libyan central bank) and transnational corporations, all of which are profiting hugely from the demise of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Thank you, thank you, thank you Mike for that. Good news even if it was short-lived. I'm on the search for all the good news now - am sure there's lots of good stuff happening out there.
DeleteHi mum, me again, I'd like to offer the Russian revolution as an example of how spreading a nations wealth in a Socialist society, started with however good will to all can and was corrupted. I've always thought that sadly it is a human fault for someone always to want "More" and not be happy with their lot and all too often there are too many who would prefer a easy life rather than complain and so the corruption starts.
ReplyDeleteI remember one of Cath's friends suggesting I should(Given the hippie lifestyle I aspired to) go to live on a Kibbutz which might have been a great idea if not for the location in a possible Israeli war-zone!
http://www.socialistrevolution.org/ideas/whats-the-alternative/what-went-wrong-in-russia/
Pat x