Posts Tagged ‘globalisation’

I heard a forgettable talking head recently speaking about an “existential threat to liberal democracy” across the world. Let me make a very simple hypothesis for these “experts”: liberal democracy can function very well if you STOP LETTING THE VERY RICH HOARD ALL THE LOOT.


People will always get disgruntled at immigration, mechanisation and a changing world, but nothing focuses the mind like seeing your standard of living steadily decline while those at the top are hiding untold riches in island paradises. If the Establishment stops repeating the mistakes of the 1930s; if it stops allowing globalisation to be used essentially as a racket for multinational plunder and money laundering under the guise of “investment”, it might still stand a chance of redeeming itself.


I won’t hold my breath.


Something about this article got me more than a little riled earlier this week:

Was it the prospect of the UK doing any deals with countries notorious for human rights violations? Was it the notion that the only way of resuscitating our flatlining economy is to flog guns and missiles to nations most likely to use them for reasons other than ‘defence’? Or was it just the admission that our only decent exports we have left are finance and arms; the two sectors most complicit in ruining the world?

In fact, all and none of these. It was the line: “his purpose was “to help Britain compete and thrive in the global race” that drew my eye.

Pardon my French, ‘Dave’, but THIS IS NOT A GAME OF FUCKING MONOPOLY!

What you call the ‘global race’ only exists in the minds of you and your fellow profiteers. Globalisation instigates only one race: a race to the bottom. It means moguls, barons and multinationals pilfer and loot economies across the world, while justifying lower taxes and lower wages with: ‘well, it’s a lot worse in India/China/inserting developing economy built on massive populations working on slave wages. We have to compete with costs’.

Neoliberalism knows no bounds when it comes to pitting people against each other: rich against poor; strong against weak; ‘ambitious’ against ‘scroungers’.’ It’s the foundation of its success. Divide and conquer. If it were merely the 1% acting against the rest, the vast majority of the 99% would rise up and overthrow them. But, if you can turn the 99% against each other in any way, render them dependent on something or otherwise mentally stultify them, you can even reinforce your privilege.

To summarise my position: please don’t accept this nonsense. Though it’s nice to be considered good at things in the global scheme, it is not the be-all and end-all. Certainly not for a Prime Minister, whose primary purpose above all else should be to ensure the safety, security and health of his population.