From Johann Hari in the Independent this morning:
Martha Gellhorn, the great war correspondent, said: "People will often say, with pride: 'I'm not interested in politics.' They might as well say, 'I'm not interested in my standard of living, my health, my job, my rights, my freedoms, my future or any future.'" Be serious. It might seem remote; it might seem difficult; it might be a world away from the arcane mumblings of Brown and Cameron; but unless you are a psychopath, you care.
And he adds:
Far from being some dreamy call to kumbaya, collective political action is the single biggest reason your life is incalculably better than that of your great-grandparents.
I agree. So?
Politicians respond to the pressures put on them. The banks and oil companies and billionaires never stop putting on their pressure, waving their cheques, and making their threats. We need to make sure our collective voices talk louder. The only way to do that is to give your time and energy and dedication to demand genuine democracy.
This isn't something remote. It's very simple and very practical. Choose one or two groups, and donate a few hours of your time a week. There are a thousand brilliant campaigning organisations — I'd recommend Plane Stupid, Greenpeace, End Child Poverty, the Tax Justice Network and the National Secular Society, just for starters. They all have work for you to do, now.
That’s about the nub of it.
You’re welcome to join in.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
Politicians respond to the pressures put on them. The banks and oil companies and billionaires never stop putting on their pressure, waving their cheques, and making their threats.
Slight re-write/inclusion:
Politicians respond to the pressures put on them. The unions and (QUA)NGOs and professional caring classes never stop putting on their pressure, demanding their cheques, and making their threats.
Georges
So, Georges, once we move away from your dislike of unions and these appalling “people who care”, what do you have to say to the idea that it is the pressure by such people which has ensured that ordinary folk in this country get to go to school, learn to read and write, need not look to their old age with the fear of going into the workhouse, need not fear getting ill and not able to get treatment? Or is that Victorian (pre-Victorian?) world the one you aspire to?
There is a serious point here. Maybe you have something to add to the discussion?
James,
At one point in time you may have been on to something. As things stand, and have for some time, the professional caring classes have become as much as an entrenched interest as big business, et al. The modern-day professional caring industry is interested in funding (preferably public) and more funding (again, public). If some good works come about along the way, a mere added bonus – not central to the overall purpose. As always, there are exceptions.
Think of the movie “I’m Alright Jack” ….. technically a work of fiction.
As it relates to the Victorian/Pre-, where those charitable works carried out on the public purse or through the voluntary actions/contributions of the individual?
Georges
Georges, one would surely be justified in concluding that those who contributed voluntary actions/contributions in the Victorian/Pre- era were the “professional caring classes” of their day. You seem to be supporting those classes in one era but not ours or our childrens’ to come. It’s also paradoxical that you evidently despise “I’m Alright Jack” but approve of “I’m Alright Tarquin”.
Why can’t you just say what you mean: I want to live in a society and enjoy the things that society provides while contributing little or nothing to that society. Or, like so many who share your views, are you afraid to be explicit for fear that your “emperor’s new clothes” will be there for all to see – or not see?
Whatever their political convictions, any honest or sane person would understand that this proposition has no traction beyond the short term because history tells us that, ultimately, concentration of wealth and/or power in fewer and fewer hands leads to revolution of one kind or another.
Nick,
Key difference between then/now. Then the professional caring classes did things with private monies. This instilled a sense of purpose, effectiveness and efficiency. Now the PCC lines up at the never-ending trough of public funding (taxes). Purpose (other than to maintain/enlarge funding), effectiveness and efficiency are not even after-thoughts.
I actually rather enjoy “I’m Alright Jack”. A rather true portrayal of venal actions and reality – something to learn from I say.
No fear on this end. Not sure how “society” is defined but I will have a go none-the-less using the generic. A society in which I pay for those things I use. A society where there is a minimum safety-net which all pay into to assist with the truly needy. If I benefit/enjoy from whatever, I pay for it …. quite simple. But it is by-and-large a matter of individual choices not governmental force/coercion. Some automatically recoil from “devil take the hindmost,” not me.
Agree, we need to have more wealth and more power in the hands of more individuals, all in a growing fashion not a redistributionist one.
Georges
Georges
Yuck
A vision of hell
Richard
Georges,
Here’s how Wikipedia defines society:
“A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence…..”
Under that definition, venal actions and reality have inevitably to be modified by the bounds of functional interdependence, the societal equivalent of market forces one might say.
Your idea of society seems to define a situation in which a minority (bankers for example) choose not to pay for what they take while expecting the majority, including those least able, to pick up the tab – all on the basis that they, the minority, are too important to suffer any loss. I cannot understand why anyone would believe that situation sustainable.
I also don’t understand what your desire for more wealth and power for individuals means.
If you’re proposing more equality of wealth and power, show me an example of how growth alone has ever achieved that end.
If, as I suspect, you’re proposing more wealth and power for selected individuals, then you haven’t answered my point about ultimate revolution.
Only someone who is financially secure could, rationally, claim to be comfortable with “devil take the hindmost”. But what the financially secure – but not in the top bracket – completely fail to see is that, if the greed continues, if the divide between rich and poor continues to grow, it is they who will be swallowed up next.
As with most things in life, enlightened self interest is much more effective than self interest. As far as I’m concerned, that’s why your argument fails to convince.