![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hmmm_teaSo, on the news this morning they were discussing the publication of the BBC expenses and salary information. Not seen any big rants on how much these people are being paid getting and how much "tax-payers money" they are spending, but it has got me thinking (well, ok this is more an amalgamation of lots of thoughts that have been running through my head recently).
OK, these people are getting paid silly amounts, but that's the way the system works. We do not have a system where people get paid fairly for the work they put in. Instead we have a market place, which means the price you get paid for your skills is subject to supply and demand and your own bartering skills. Net result, those who have power and influence get more money and those with money get more power and influence in an ever growing spiral. Those of us that don't have much of either are generally stuffed.
It's always struck me as bizarre that we live in a society were we pay people phenomenial amounts in the city to basically manipulate the system. City traders may be highly skilled individuals, but it seems a shame that these skills should be focused on working the system to increase the profit for the companies they represent rather than something that's actually useful to society. However, when it comes to the things that are fundamental to society, like food production, education, nursing, etc. The workers in these areas are generally accepted to be paid less then they are actually worth.
One thing that really worries me, is how it seems to prevent us from dealing with the real issues. In 2006, the Stern review was released bring the climate change issue to the front in order that we might actually do something about it. Nearly 3 years later, very little seems to have actually happened inspite of many discussions about how we could implement things like carbon trading, etc. However, very few inroads seem to have been made on any of these ideas. Why not? Because they don't suit big business, who are the people who hold the real power within our society. I'm fairly certain that there are many people working for these companies who would view climate change as an issue, but it's the will of the organisation rather than the individual that rules here and that will is almost entirely devoted to profit. Somewhat worrying when the IPCC suggest we need our emissions to peak by 2015, which means we've now wasted a third of the time we had to deal with these things.
In short, we live in a system where the needs of artificial constructs in the form of companies and organisations take priority over the needs of the people within them and rewards individuals based upon there power and influence instead of as a reflection of their own input into society and as a result encourages class inequality.
Solving a single manifestation of this is not going to make a huge difference to society as a whole. If you really have a problem with this consider the bigger issue rather than picking on individuals as we did with the MPs. They're just working the system in the way the capitalism encourages. If you remove one problem individual and their methods of manipulating the system, then another will come along and do something very similar, just in a different way.
OK, these people are getting paid silly amounts, but that's the way the system works. We do not have a system where people get paid fairly for the work they put in. Instead we have a market place, which means the price you get paid for your skills is subject to supply and demand and your own bartering skills. Net result, those who have power and influence get more money and those with money get more power and influence in an ever growing spiral. Those of us that don't have much of either are generally stuffed.
It's always struck me as bizarre that we live in a society were we pay people phenomenial amounts in the city to basically manipulate the system. City traders may be highly skilled individuals, but it seems a shame that these skills should be focused on working the system to increase the profit for the companies they represent rather than something that's actually useful to society. However, when it comes to the things that are fundamental to society, like food production, education, nursing, etc. The workers in these areas are generally accepted to be paid less then they are actually worth.
One thing that really worries me, is how it seems to prevent us from dealing with the real issues. In 2006, the Stern review was released bring the climate change issue to the front in order that we might actually do something about it. Nearly 3 years later, very little seems to have actually happened inspite of many discussions about how we could implement things like carbon trading, etc. However, very few inroads seem to have been made on any of these ideas. Why not? Because they don't suit big business, who are the people who hold the real power within our society. I'm fairly certain that there are many people working for these companies who would view climate change as an issue, but it's the will of the organisation rather than the individual that rules here and that will is almost entirely devoted to profit. Somewhat worrying when the IPCC suggest we need our emissions to peak by 2015, which means we've now wasted a third of the time we had to deal with these things.
In short, we live in a system where the needs of artificial constructs in the form of companies and organisations take priority over the needs of the people within them and rewards individuals based upon there power and influence instead of as a reflection of their own input into society and as a result encourages class inequality.
Solving a single manifestation of this is not going to make a huge difference to society as a whole. If you really have a problem with this consider the bigger issue rather than picking on individuals as we did with the MPs. They're just working the system in the way the capitalism encourages. If you remove one problem individual and their methods of manipulating the system, then another will come along and do something very similar, just in a different way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-25 01:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-25 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-25 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-25 04:21 pm (UTC)I somehow think Marx may have had a few valid points, even if Lenin et al had to go a spoil it all through their own corruption.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 08:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-28 04:36 pm (UTC)Greed isn't good
Date: 2009-07-01 06:58 am (UTC)I think that's where the phase 'Greed is good' comes from. It isn't good, but if we stopped being greedy we would need a new economic system.
But let's compare and contrast capitalism gone drastically wrong, say the current recession, with communism gone drastically wrong. I'll wait.
Re: Greed isn't good
Date: 2009-07-01 04:40 pm (UTC)Evil Marx
Date: 2009-06-27 08:48 am (UTC)(Curiously every communist movement has had the bloody revolution first, and then banned the religion afterwards. Presumably in case another bloody revolution was needed.)
Colour me thoroughly unconvinced on Marx being a good bloke misapplied.
Re: Evil Marx
Date: 2009-06-28 04:52 pm (UTC)As far as I see it you could never set up a socialist society through violent revolution as this naturally imposes a ruling class without a mandate from the people (as with the Bolsheviks). Modern Bolsheviks appear to be some of the most capitalist people around, all slotting in towards the top of the capital ladders.
The only way I could see society changing is through our current political systems.
Re: Evil Marx
Date: 2009-07-01 07:02 am (UTC)History definitely stands with you that if you create a government by violent revolution the government you get is violent.
Are you still planning to make religion illegal?
Re: Evil Marx
Date: 2009-07-01 04:46 pm (UTC)Which is exactly what I just said, i.e. Capitalism collapses and the natural thing to come out of the ashes is socialism.
The idea the capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionism is Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism).
I personally wouldn't make religion illegal only separate from the principles on which society is founded as belief is an individual thing and society is made up of a large number of people with different religious views. Agreeing with the general philosophy of someone doesn't necessarily make me agree with every point they've ever made.
Capitalism: not as black as it's painted
Date: 2009-06-27 08:43 am (UTC)1. If we don't have enough of X then the wages for X rise, so more people become an X, and vital jobs get done. Without coercion. See plumbers.
2. Unpleasant but necessary jobs get done because wages are raised until people are prepared to do it. This is a powerful force against your touted class enforcing.
There are places where the system breaks down, for example entertainment where uniqueness means competition doesn't work properly any more (I consider sport a form of entertainment. Except rugby obviously, which is a form of torture).
There has been something wrong with the city over the last few years, in it's execution, but not in it's purpose. The purpose of the city is to provide good governance to our companies, which are not really ruled by the good of the fictional entities you imagine, but by the good of shareholders, that is, the good of people with pensions. Most of capitalism is the relentless pursuit of people being able to retire without poverty.
I'm not convinced that food production, education and nursing are systematically underpaid. Teachers certainly aren't! Interestingly two of the three on that list aren't part of capitalism in this country, so I'm not very sure what it would prove even if they are under paid as you claim.
Re: Capitalism: not as black as it's painted
Date: 2009-06-28 05:00 pm (UTC)There isn't an equal provision of healthcare or education regardless of wealth. Partially because of the option to get better service if you are willing to pay for it and partially because we're generally unhappy to tax those that are better off to fund a reasonable service for those less well off.
Farmers are massively unpaid as the food market is pretty much controlled by a handful of large organisations (the supermarkets), who have so much control they can pretty much declare how much they want to pay for something like milk no matter what the production costs are.
Teaching is highly skilled occupation (or at least it certainly should be) and involves long hours (especially with the levels of bureaucracy imposed on it at the moment) and so should be one of the most highly paid jobs. Yet it doesn't get anything near other skilled industries like IT or banking for example.
Similarly for nursing.
Re: Capitalism: not as black as it's painted
Date: 2009-07-01 07:07 am (UTC)I think capitalism is an economic system, not a political system, and that you can have democratic capitalist states and totalitarian capitalist states. I prefer the former.
I think our system of government isn't capitalist because people are elected to government, they don't buy it.
I think the state sector isn't capitalist because it has no capital raising, shareholders, profit, or any of the other things I associate with capitalism.
Of course socialism is a philosophy with a wider net, and if you wanted to raise an opponent to it you might want it to be rather bigger than my capitalism, to have a political and social set of objectives as well as economic. I guess that's the angle you've come from.
Re: Capitalism: not as black as it's painted
Date: 2009-07-01 04:33 pm (UTC)The education system for example is moving more towards a principle of schools selling themselves to pupils (and their parents). The currency is people rather than money in that case, but the principle is the same and it does effect the amount of money the school gains as a result.