Oxfam recently published that 62 people own as much as half the populationof the entire world. The entire pitch of the Clinton campaign is that this is absolutely fine, provided half of them are black and the appropriate proportions from ethnic minorities.
Identity politics have become well and truly established as the antidote to demands for social progress and for an end to the massive growth in wealth inequality. This is essentially an American development, although the idea that the purpose of feminism is for Emma Watson to get $12 million a film has caught on with at least some British people, and is the whole basis of the political stance of the modern all-American Guardian.
Hillary summed up the psychological trick of the faux egalitarianism in a simple sentence:
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow … will that end racism? Will that end sexism? Will that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”. It is brilliant rhetoric, a masterpiece of sophistry. Of course breaking up the banks will not directly end these other evils. But neither would ending those things end the appalling level of wealth inequality. It comes directly back to my opening question of whether multi-billionaires are OK as long as they are appropriately representative of black, female and LGBT.
The truth of the matter is that almost everybody who campaigns against wealth inequality is also strongly against racial, gender, religious and sexual inequality. But many of those who focus on identity politics not only have no concern for general equality, but are primarily concerned with the ability of themselves and those like them to propel themselves into the ranks of the elite.
I couldn’t agree more. Clinton’s comments about breaking-up the banks is clearly preposterous.
On this subject, I think you’re aware of the HSBC whilstleblower Nicholas Wilson who identified a £1bn fraud that everyone seems to want to ignore. A couple of recent tweets from him suggest he’s getting more than a little disheartened – is there any advice or support you could offer him?
http://nicholaswilson.com/
More on HSBC here:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/death-drugs-and-hsbc-355ed9ef5316#.ddgwz2q4z
It’s a good thesis. I don’t quite take the same slant on it because minority rights, as they were once called, are a separate issue from inequality of income, though of course affected by such inequality. You answer the question yourself in the last paragraph.
There is a problem that I have seen develop over my lifetime. Stars, like Emma Watson, have turned into superstars with concomitant incomes. Footballers too. When we were young we could afford to go every week to support our team. But I can remember Ronnie Clayton’s newspaper shop on Blackburn Road and that was one of the ways footballers who played for their country had to provide for themselves after retirement. Along came Jimmy Hill and footballers too were changed into super-footballers. Money is always the God. And so it is with politicians.
Take a look at this link regarding our MPs, particularly Labour MPs who for the very philosophy of the link do not want people like their new leader spoiling things. Then ask yourself who is paying for these clowns to enjoy a rich retirement, just like their US counterparts in a country where political morals do not exist and the dollar is the be-all and end-all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11749573/MPs-receive-pension-bonus-of-50000-along-with-10-per-cent-pay-rise.html
Now take a look at this link and you will see a totally different kind of politics espoused. One of these political philosophies is moral. I do not need to point out which.
http://www.ewao.com/a/worlds-poorest-president-explains-why-we-should-kick-rich-people-out-of-politics/
“Oxfam recently published that 62 people own half the wealth of the entire world. ”
That isn’t what it says. It says that there are 62 people who own as much as the poorest half of the population which is entirely different. It also says that 1% of the population own as much as the rest of us, i.e. half the wealth. That’s 1% of 7 billion which is considerably more than 62.
Aren’t you mistakenly attributing depth to the utterances of politicians? When they’re on the stump thay’ll say anything that gets them a vote. Shillary can’t alienate the banks, because, if the Clinton Foundation isn’t a bank, it’s so closely intertwined with finance as to be inseparable. And Hillary can’t alienate the feminist/LGBT/Black votes, because they’re solid Dem. So Hillary has to invent a mythical world in which calling the former to account will destroy the latter, in the interests of reconciling the irreconcilable.
I can’t wait to hear her on Israel. For the record, and away from the campaign trail, she’s not looking for anything remotely resembling a Palestinian state, and will not be inconveniently scrupulous on the subject of the larger, established, illegal settlements:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/208740
On the other hand, there’s little love lost between her and Netanyahu.
Classic Hillary country. Come the final interview for the job, at AIPAC, it will be interesting to see how she plays it.
The banks did a pretty good job of breaking up themselves. clinton is just wafting republicanism and raw cunt-power to call the dogs in. Trump wafts I’m a real dumb American in the same way to get appeal from democrats. a disgusting spectacle all round.
Out of bounds… if we leave the EU we’re going to waft ourselves closer over to them, and if we stay in Europe we’ll get sucked down the US TTIP vortex the same.
Companies naturally buy up their smaller competitors when they can. Companies do not spontaneously break themselves up into smaller competing companies. Therefore, without some sort of counter influence, we will end up with one big global company that runs everything.
Funny that the inevitable conclusion to the capitalism so much resembles the communist objective of totally centralised control.
I propose a tax on profit that increases proportionally with market share. A company with 100% market share would pay 100% of its profit in tax.
Nit-picking Fred. For what purpose?
The nation state is the fiction that binds racism and wealth inequality. It is the fiction under whose flag you compete against others to defend the local elite interests.
You may wish the nation state was something else but this is what it always has been and still is. All nationalism is fundamentally flawed and misguided.
“Nit-picking Fred. For what purpose?”
Nit picking?
Craig claims that 62 people own half the wealth in the world when the article says that 70 million people own half the wealth in the word. That’s one hell of a big difference to call “nit picking”.
Hi Fred,
You are right, poorly expressed by me and I will change. But it makes no difference to the argument. Now I have adjusted that, have you any comment on the argument?
“Nit-picking Fred. For what purpose?”
_____________________
I note that your are not contesting Fred’s argument but just trying to belittle it by calling it nit-picking.
It is not nit-picking to point out that the headline is misleading – and wrong. As Fred has well demonstrated.
I had the same thoughts when I read the first paragraph of the OXFAM article and was surprised by the absence of concrete figures which would clearly make the case.
To be fair to Craig, he is just repeating the OXFAM headline.
“You are right, poorly expressed by me and I will change. But it makes no difference to the argument. Now I have adjusted that, have you any comment on the argument?”
Different people worry about different things. Some worry about discrimination, some worry about injustice, some worry about global warming and some worry that somebody else has more money than they have.
I have a roof over my head, food in my stomach and a good pair of boots I’m ahead of the game.
And the prize for getting in the first mention of ISRAEL on this new thread – and so early on! – goes to Ba’al Zevul (formerly Captain Komodo).
Congratulations for adding a (unwelcome) dimension to Craig’s argument! 🙂
When we move into the period when the ruling elite is silicone, rather than carbon based, wouldn’t that make our panjandrums superfluous to requirements?
With logic at its core, and desiring only electricity & information, money and the power it buys becomes redundant as motivator.
Let’s hope the dismantling of elite schooling is top of the singularities manifesto. The bastards won’t let go of power willingly, as ever.
Hillary Clinton skould be standing for trial, not the presidency. She was found to be distributing top secret documents from her computer.
If the Pentagon is wondering how the Russians are able to disable NATO communication and surveillance systems it could do worse than take a very close look at Mrs C’s activities. It looks as though the Russians got hold of detailed designs.
She is the most public face of the criminal gangster class that has taken control of the USA and much of the west.
Not only is identity politics a tool for hiding one’s lack of intention to do anything about economic inequality, but it also drives people apart. I’m a gay man and am sick of having to tick the LGBT (or ‘Prefer not to say’) box on forms when it’s none of anyone else’s business. How are people in minorities supposed to be equal if our difference is constantly pointed out?
Elsewhere on the Guardian, their US columnist Richard Wolffe says that it’s definitely all over for Sanders – ignoring the fact that Sanders has done well in the states that the Democrats might actually win.
Wolffe is a perfect fir for the Guardian, given that he has on-the-record stated that he doesn’t give a shit about the line between corporate interests and news:
http://gawker.com/5328376/the-secret-shameless-sleaze-of-msnbcs-richard-wolffe
http://www.salon.com/2007/02/21/wolffe_2/
Fred, I would welcome your views on the general argument now you have pointed out an error. The argument is more important than the error. Is it all right for the Clintons, and families like them, to wallow in wealth while the poor go hungry and homeless, at the same time preaching on the importance of equality for gays, blacks and women?
“The argument is more important than the error. Is it all right for the Clintons, and families like them, to wallow in wealth while the poor go hungry and homeless, at the same time preaching on the importance of equality for gays, blacks and women?”
I wouldn’t know.
Do you think she would be a better person if she wallowed in wealth and didn’t preach against the importance of equality for gays, blacks and women? Like all those on the Forbes list in Russia and China.
Kevin
“How are people in minorities supposed to be equal if our difference is constantly pointed out?”
Hits nail squarely on the head.
We’re all a minority now really anyway. Definition’s, and identity.
Manipulated for self aggrandisement, and to maintain the status quo.
Hillary has another reason to play footsie with AIPAC:
http://features.kodoom.com/en/iran-politics/sanders-against-hillary-s-pro-netanyahu-anti-iran-stance/v/5780/
AIPAC will be welcoming Netanyahu to its 2016 annual conference later this month. He is not expected to meet Obama (why would he? He’s a lame duck now) but it will be fascinating to see who he does meet. And what they say. Bearing in mind that peace in the wider Middle East will be partially dependent on a Palestinian solution.
“Do you think she would be a better person if she wallowed in wealth and didn’t preach against the importance of equality for gays, blacks and women?”
But that’s a different question. It’s like me asking: “Is it because Clinton is an alleged Lesbian who likes black lovers that she supports equality for blacks, gays and women despite wallowing in untold wealth?” It detracts from the thrust of the argument, like pointing out an error, which was acknowledged and is to be corrected, if it has not been already.
When we move into the period when the ruling elite is silicone….Let’s hope the dismantling of elite schooling is….
Say what you like about elite schooling, it generally clarifies the difference between silicone and silicon for its chemistry students. Though the digital electronics of the future may well be based on other materials than crystalline silicon.
Fred: she’s standing for election and has identified her target demographic and the platform most likely to attract votes. That’s all.
“Fred: she’s standing for election and has identified her target demographic and the platform most likely to attract votes. That’s all.”
Yes I know.
Another little matter being largely ignored by the US candidates is the dire state of the US economy.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/23/Here-s-Real-Problem-Candidates-Could-Address-Our-Fiscal-Meltdown
Whoever wins, Ben and Lysias will probably become familiar with the term ‘austerity’ fairly soon.
Ba’al Zevul persists:
“Hillary has another reason to play footsie with AIPAC:
http://features.kodoom.com/en/iran-politics/sanders-against-hillary-s-pro-netanyahu-anti-iran-stance/v/5780/”
🙂
“It detracts from the thrust of the argument, like pointing out an error”
______________________How does pointing out an error detract from the argument?
People posting in good faith should be happy that errors in their argument are pointed out, surely. (As Craig was).
Actually there was no error in the argument. There was a mistake in a fact which, once the correct fact was substituted, made no difference to the argument at all as both had the same effect in proving wealth inequality.
The top 1.03% richest people in the world includes those earning £25K annually. Little known as far as I can establish, FACT.