wordswithoutend

Do I blame the people on the streets of London for being there today? No – the vast majority understandably cling to the hope that there is another way to deal with our current situation. The loss of jobs and services is horrendous and it is true that, under current plans, it is those who will lose their jobs that will pay a disproportionate price in order to sort this mess out. It’s hellish.

What I find even more depressing though, is that the argument they are being asked to accept as an alternative is weak to the point of being deliberately obtuse. Brendan Barber’s alternative to cuts is to cut out tax loop holes and bring in a Robin Hood tax on the Banks which he, like many others, set up as the sole culprits in the huge deficit the country faces.

The reality is that, without crippling the banking industry, such a tax would hardly make a small dent in the mountain of debt we face. However guilty some people in that industry might be it remains the biggest industry we have and while crippling it might make us all feel better for a moment it certainly wouldn’t help us. Killing the goose will not increase gold egg production. Ed Miliband was, unsurprisingly, massively unconvincing and had even less to say about what real measures he would take than Brendan Barber. Judging by his reception I think most people in the crowd realised that.

It is true that the huge property bubble and its collapse that precipitated the current crisis can be traced to a small number of senior executives in Investment Banks, particularly the big 5 in the US. Those that knew that high risk debts were being sold on as AAA Bank investments on a huge scale (and those that rated them) should be in jail.

What is also true is that the cost to the tax payer of dealing with that crisis only represents about 25% of the debt mountain we face and, since much of it is tied to fees and shares, the tax payer should get a large proportion of that back.

The major cause of our current plight has in fact been that successive governments (not just the previous one although they did add an exponential dimension to it) have been borrowing money to fund a public sector that was not affordable from tax receipts alone. They maintained a standard of living for the country by borrowing.

The National Debt has been rising steadily since the mid 70′s (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_brief.php) and is now somewhere around the 4.1 Trillion mark and rising. The interest on this alone is £43 billion per year.

The sad question that the protesters in Hyde Park need to answer is, regardless of who is in charge, how is this to be dealt with? If Brendan Barber or Ed Miliband were to take over the country tomorrow would they really be able to do much differently? The answer is no, certainly not by anything they said today. Their real solution is to continuing to allow the debt mountain to get bigger and bigger.

Of course there are people on the march today who do have a genuinely different solution. Those are the extreme left who are seeking the dissolution of the capitalist system altogether. They are the one’s drawing parallels between the occupation of Hyde Park and the Tahrir Square revolution in Tunisia and the upheavals across the Middle East. Their solution to the current situation is to tear the whole system up and start again. This is a real proposition and one that will appeal to a lot of people on the surface.

Most of us would accept that the pursuit of profit and economic growth is a poison that, like warfarin for heart patients, is lifesaving in small doses but fatal in large ones. At its extreme it ceases to be a healthy desire to get on and do well and becomes a morally blind instrument that dominates the human soul and society.

Where the revolutionaries are less than honest is in coming clean about the human cost in bringing about this change. This is not a question removing a despotic Arab regime and replacing it with one that more truly holds  the interests of the whole nation at heart. This would be removal of all assets and starting again with nothing. No deficit but also no savings, pensions or any money to pay any public service workers at all. Sterling would simply cease to be worth anything on the world markets. In time a sealed system of monetary exchange could be established and a “not for profit” economy developed after a fashion but I doubt if all those good people marching today would want to pay the cost of that with whatever they have, large or small.

The brutal and unpalatable fact is that what will have to happen is the reduction of government spending to levels lower than its income.

In the meantime people have a right to be angry but they also have a right to some honesty.

wordswithoutend.com

Anger is understandable. There is such a thing as righteous anger. Anger can drive people to seek change and to oppose injustice. It also fans the flames of conflict and provokes itself in others in an endless escalation of hurt and hatred. We know it in ourselves and we see it on the world stage. Polarisation of relationships, demonization of the object, it is a familiar story. In a world full of anger how can we break the cycle of blood and power?

As the West continues intervention in Libya the motives of Western governments are understandably questioned. There is a debate within Western societies and the Arab world as to whether there should be intervention or not.

The extreme left in the UK, for instance, are solidly against intervention.

http://www.aworldtowin.net/blog/no-to-military-intervention-in-libya.html

Those that seek the destruction of capitalism as their main end, see all Western action as simply another aspect of the great conspiracy to defend the interests of that system and to protect the pursuit of profit. Any attempt to support or protect those involved in the uprising must have an underlying motive namely, the creation of

“a pro-Western government in place of the unpredictable Colonel Gaddafi. A government that will permit the unhindered exploitation of the country’s oil resources and move towards a market economy”

The argument sees the value of all the Arab risings only in terms of them being a step in the direction of the downfall of the world capitalist system. We should fight intervention and focus on building our own revolutionary movement here in the UK.

Voices on the Republican right agree.

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/03/14/no-fly-wont-fly-constitutionally/

They also come out against for similarly “wider” considerations. “It’s not our fight, we can’t afford it and the Arabs will hate any government that has our support anyway” is the kind of argument.

Within the Arab world there is a similar debate.

http://arabnews.com/opinion/letters/article317079.ece

There is concern that any Western intervention will be seen as being for mercenary motives.

“Arab public opinion would be convinced that this is only to control the Libyan oil. So, if Qaddafi could be defeated in this way, people would shrug their shoulders: One more time the West got its way and now its oil supply is secure.”

There is also a concern that such a move will play into the Islamist hands and that Western intervention might cause the country to be sucked into the Jihad against the West.

“Think of this not unlikely scenario: Contingents of military advisers from America, Britain and France fight with the overwhelming majority of Libyans against Qaddafi’s regime. On the other side you will find the colonel’s foreign mercenaries, plus thousands of volunteers from Muslim nations who don’t care one bit about the Libyan people. For them it is important to fight against the Big Satan and become martyrs in the process.”

There is also the desire to see the Arab world take the lead.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865.html

“The time has come, in short, for the Arab regimes to demonstrate regionally and internationally the will and courage to act demonstrated by many of their own citizens domestically. Otherwise, they run the risk, in what is supposed to be a transforming Middle East, that when the last Libyan rebel lies bleeding in the desert, the boot of a pro-Gaddafi thug upon his neck, his last gasp will be: “Where are the Arabs?”

The key views are of course those of those involved in the uprising. If Western news coverage is to be believed they are very glad of the air strikes.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Libya-Benghazi-Rebels-Have-Seen-Highs-And-Lows-Since-the-Start-of-The-Uprising/Article/201103415959725?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15959725_Video%3A_Libya%2C_Benghazi_Rebels_Have_Seen_Highs_And_Lows_Since_the_Start_of_The_Uprising

Intuitively, if we put ourselves in their shoes then I, for one, would be too.

Underneath, or often very much on the surface, of these arguments is a great deal of anger. The hatred of the West, its leaders and structures is very strong. (Though a little less so in Banghazi at the moment it would seem.) For different reasons this is true in many Arab hearts and also in those of the political far left and right in this country.

The degree to which this anger is justified or directed where it should be is a matter for debate but that it is there is undeniable. The West is “The Big Satan” in the eyes of many in the Arab world. The evil capitalist system and those that drive it and benefit most from it are the “Big Satan” for the political left while the liberal establishment and perceived threats to society from various groups and various changes are the devil that torments those of the political right. Lots of very angry people but where, though, does their anger come from and what are it’s likely outcomes?

Anger arises out of a mixture of things. Perhaps the main reasons are frustration in not being able to obtain our ends and also the instinctive response to attacks on our self image either as individuals or as members of a group. Any perceived injustice done to ourselves or our own will make naturally us angry.

Anger often feels good and righteous anger even better. It can be a huge driver in motivating people to bring about change, in righting wrongs and in generating a strong response to a threat.

It also tends to blind, polarise and lead to action that generates ever greater levels of hostility between people on opposite sides of an argument. Anger, by its nature, tends towards escalation, and to the demonization of the object, or at least, to the taking an increasingly worse view of it.

In the playground, taunts, being less popular, beautiful or successful than others tend to lead to shame, hurt and a sense of in justice and powerlessness. Shame and hurt lead to blame, push back and argument. Harsh words lead to physical conflict and they, in turn, lead to all out fighting.

The adult world is perhaps more sophisticated (though often not very much so) but essentially the same process takes place. If I feel I am being unfairly treated or if I feel someone has injured me or mine in some way then I will be angry and will eventually push back.

People have different views of course, but there must be some truth in the following:

1.    At the heart of the Arab / Muslim world’s anger with the West is a deep sense of things not having gone the way they should. If Islam is the final and great religion then it should triumph and so should its people. How then can the Christian / Secular West remain economically, militarily and technologically superior? This is wrong theologically and is a constant affront. Worse, as we have seen in the recent risings, there is a steady influx and increase in the influence of many aspects of Western culture in the Muslim world. The revolutionaries seem to want only what most young people in the West want, access to a decent lifestyle, some prosperity and most of the modern conveniences produced by Western technology. It is significant that the risings were organised and carried out with the help of Facebook and mobile phones. All this is a threat and an insult that has led to deep resentment. This finds focus in “righteous” anger at the situation in Israel and at the Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan but there is an element of chicken and egg in all these situations.

The intervention in Iraq would have produced a peaceful outcome very quickly were it not for the determined and extensive intervention of Iran and the deep well of resentment against the West that already existed.

Israel has used its army as an instrument of repression in some terrible ways but, as the recent bus bomb shows, the long war against the existence of the Jewish State goes on and, if Israel is uncompromising, so are those who will never accept that it has a right to be at all. Israel epitomises the power of the West because, despite 3 wars, it remains stronger economically and militarily than its Arab neighbours.

There is righteous anger at the actions of  Israel and the West generally and many grievances which people in both the Arab world and the West consider legitimate but there is also a deeper anger of disappointment and hurt pride that flows underneath that surface of this outrage.

The West is demonised and yet envied at the same time. Not for its culture or faith. Muslims don’t want Western culture or secularism but they do want its economic and technological success and it can only be Satan’s work that the West is so far ahead in terms of these things.

2.    The political left in this country are angry because most people will not listen to them. The Marxist movement has had a big boost as a result of the recent economic fiasco and 20 years of successive governments spending more than they raise in taxation. The left hope that the risings in the Middle East are a sign of things to come in Western democracies but the contexts are very different. The Marxist critique of a system based on profit and addicted to growth is telling. This is especially so in the light of the appalling cycle of speculation and, amongst a few powerful people at least, some real criminal deceit.

The frustration for the left is that most people don’t accept (at least currently) that the system is so bad that it needs completely torn up. If they could persuade people of their vision for a different society they would simply start a new party, stand in an election and get elected but they know no one would vote for them.

Perhaps people can also see just how much pain for everyone, especially the less well off, there would be if they succeeded.

Imagine a country simply opting out of the current financial system. It might seem attractive to simply tear up the deficit and prevent people doing anything for profit but the result would be catastrophic. Sterling would become worth zero over night. Nobody would lend money to the new government and anyone who had any savings or pensions would lose them in one stroke.

Instead they are trying to mobilise groups of people to set up an alternative government through without any attempt at running that past the whole electorate.

There will be a lot of demonstrations and unrest this year as people lose jobs and have much less spending power. The people on the streets beside the revolutionaries, however, like the Arabs in the Middle East, don’t want a communist system. They just want a decent living and a decent life. There will be a lot of anger but it won’t be the anger the frustrated left feel.

So what are we to do? We can’t stop people or ourselves being angry and nor should we if the anger is at a real injustice. But there would be an awful lot less anger all round if we were all honest with ourselves and admitted that a lot of our anger is actually selfish in nature.

We are angry because things are not going our way. We are angry because they are bigger and stronger and more successful than we are. We are angry because the people we want to help won’t listen to us even though we know we are right. We are angry because we are currently on the losing team. Worse, no one is pickling us to be on their team! These are familiar resentments. We feel them on a personal level from the playground to the work place and beyond. Injustice does make us angry but so does our own jealousy, desire for acknowledgement and raw selfish will.

And so the cycle of anger goes on. Anger breeding anger in its object in return and, with each exchanged jibe or insult or act of violence, it builds.

How do we escape from this vendetta of rage?

We do so by doing all we can to take the selfish element out of it. The insult to our own pride and self esteem, our own envy and selfish ambition, have to be acknowledged and dealt with. Once we recognise that we, our own views, our own aspirations and desires are not always fair, reasonable or moral then it is easier to let go of a lot of anger. Injustice still needs to be fought but, without selfish anger involved, it is a lot easier to distinguish between real injustice and our own hurt pride.

So let’s be angry by all means. Angry against tyranny and exploitation and the cynicism of left and right that would abandon the people of Benghazi to their fate but let us also take a good look inside ourselves and ask the question of our own anger. Is this about me or about what is right?