En stark känsla av deja vu. Det var min första tanke när jag läste de senaste intervjuerna med Björn Nalle Wahlroos. Facket är eländigt, de allmänbindande kollektivavtalen är eländiga, skatterna är eländiga och allt går åt helvete om vi inte genast luckrar upp anställningsskyddet, skär ner i de sociala förmånerna och i servicen samt genast lättar på skatterna för de som tjänar allra mest.
Låter detta budskap bekant? Om det gör det beror det nog på att du hört det förut. Många, många gånger.
Det är konstigt att högern känner ett så litet behov av att förnya sig och anpassa sitt budskap till det som sker i världen omkring. Det är samma gamla visa som hörts under årtionden.
Samtidigt funderar den övriga världen på helt nya typer av problem. Ett av dem är hur man kan åtgärda den otroligt orättvisa koncentrationen av förmögenhet och tillgångar till en liten rik elit. Den nuvarande situationen är inte bara djupt orättvis, utan även ohållbart ineffektiv. I en värld där resurserna nog skulle räcka för att motarbeta fattigdomen, stoppa klimatförändringen och utbilda hela befolkningen, är det helt absurt att de 26 rikaste männen istället sinsemellan sitter på lika stora tillgångar som halva jordens befolkning.
Även i Finland har den rikaste elitens tillgångar vuxit betydligt snabbare än resten av befolkningens. De mest centrala redskap som stater har för att motarbeta denna typ av extrem koncentration av tillgångar är just de redskap som Wahlroos kritiserar; skatter och kollektiv organisering.
En annan fråga av enorm betydelse handlar om klimatförändringen och hur vi ska lyckas stoppa ökningen av utsläpp och utöka kolsänkorna så snabbt som vi behöver för att jorden ska överleva. Det finns hittills inga exempel där en ökning av den ekonomiska tillväxten och en minskning av de globala utsläppen har lyckats samtidigt. Därför är den omställning som behövs av en enorm karaktär och innebär att de offentliga investeringarna i allt från klimatvänlig infrastruktur till klimatvänliga innovationer måste utökas. Det innebär även att vi måste bygga om vår ekonomiska modell så att den inte längre baserar sig på fossila bränslen. Den omställningen kommer inte att ske enbart på marknadsvillkor, utan måste styras politiskt.
Slutligen funderar hela världen på vilka implikationer den digitala ekonomin kommer att ha för hur pengar förtjänas, värde skapas och för hur vi arbetar. Vi ser redan en enorm global monopolisering av data, polarisering av arbetsmarknaderna och allt kraftigare autoritär utveckling av den världsordningen. För att motarbeta det behövs mera demokrati, kollektiv verksamhet och inte att den absolut rikaste eliten dikterar samhällsutvecklingen för alla andra.
2 kommentarer
Nalle on riidankylväjä. Provosoivilla puheillaan haluaa uskotella ihmisille että nyt on väärää politiikkaa kaikkien kannalta vaikka se on väärää vain hänen ja hänenlaistensa kannalta. Hänen puheensa ovat vanhentunutta kapitalimin ylistystä jossa vain kasvetaan eikä loppua näy. Ei sitä kapitalistille näykkään jos hänen näkemyksensä toteutuu koska kapitalismi perustuu siihen että on rikkaita ja köyhiä. Hän käyttää kansakunnan alitajunnassa olevaa negatiivista retoriikkaa ouhuessaan että nyt pitäisi rettelöidä ja kauhukuvia luomalla koittaa saada ihmiset kammoksumaan nykypolitiikkaa. Hän on olevinaan köyhien ystävä kuten Trump. Todellisuudessa köyhät tuovat vain hiekkaa pankkien lattialle hänen mielestään. . Hän koittaa jossain kohtaa olla suopea ja moni saatta siihen harhautua. Täysin empaattinen ihminen ,joka varmasti omiensa joukossa on mitä ihanin ja lämminsydämmisin ihminen mitä kuvitella saattaa. Aivan kuten natsijohtajistakin sanottiin , lapsia ja perhettä rakastavia hyviä isiä. ( lähdin tuolle linjalle koska hänkin lähti ” nyt pitäisi rettelöidä linjalle )
Nalle tuo vain kuraa hyvinvointiyhteikunnan lattialle.
This is a piece which certainly serves quite a bit food for thought, but what to do about the mentioned problems? My head did anyway get going, and one will have to see how long the resulting comment will become … .
(a) I think it is NOT ”konstigt att högern känner ett så litet behov att förnya sig och anpassa sit budskap …”. Because: neoliberalism as represented by Nalle Wahlroos is, I think, not a scientific theory but a religion. A theory would have to show evidence, and it would collapse if the evidence should turn out to be wrong. As to the evidence presented for neoliberalism, psychology has been proving several times over that the so-called homo economicus is in fact a very rare type of personality (although the selection mechanisms in our working and business life may well enrich the upper strata of business and finance with just this type of persons), and experience has also meanwhile shown that the hoped-for effect that the accumulated riches in the upper classes should ”trickle down” for the benefit of the poorer classes is NOT NEARLY happening to the promised degree. All of which does not hinder the representatives of neoliberalism from continuing to claim that the hugely uneven distribution of wealth is just as things should be, because (flatteringly so) the rich ones have EARNED their money (also morally) – which is a message which for obvious psychological reasons is eagerly spread by those who have the money for spreading it -, and that ”in the end” the ”invisible hand of the market” will make every truly deserving person (who is that?) well up if we all just continue to be faithful believers in neoliberalism. Well, the representatives of this religion go on getting their salaries and the observer is left to ponder the question what might make one into a ”deserving” person. Anyway, one may notice the similarities between neoliberalism and other established religions, with the representatives of it being flattered, also being in the position to spread its teachings (with pleasant consequences for themselves), while usual people are admonished to be steadfast in their faith, for which they will be rewarded at the end of times … . And to hell with science and its methods … . But if one should want to do something against this religion, one could perhaps begin by calling it just that, namely a religion, and to do so publicly and regularly.
(b) The distribution of wealth is in fact hugely uneven (which can neither be morally justified nor by the claim that it were in effect good for everybody; as it isn’t – as experience is showing). But this inequality is so well established and protected by so many people (such as judges who believe in the supreme status of private property, armies of lawyers, politicians who are afraid of the possible consequences – also for their own careers – if they should not consider the wishes of Big Money) that it will take a VERY LONG TIME to bring about any bigger change of this system. And I think that, if we want to get anything done about the climate problem, we do not have that time. Thus, one can perhaps think about crowd sourcing of environment-friendly action (which should fit for , e.g,, decentralized production of energy – as it did already once in Denmark) and PERHAPS and after VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION also think about making donations for VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSES tax-deductible (so that the contributors can do good, feel good, and even talk/write about it – which may result in more money coming …). There may be even more ideas, but I am afraid that climate action will very mostly have to be done in the frame of the existing economical system.
(c) About the climate problem the Finnish government has already expressed its intention to make Finland carbon neutral by 2035. It has also begun to talk about ”tuffa beslut”, which I take as a warning signal. Because I see at least TWO different ways of tackling the problem. The one (which the government seems to have in mind) would be to invest heavily in already existing technology. This way one can hope to make just Finland carbon neutral, i.e. a rather large country with pretty few inhabitants, so that it would be very much the question whether the Finnish example could be followed by other countries with more inhabitants. On top of which there is always the experience that the promises of established firms tend not really to keep up: things will easily become more expensive than promised and not either be ready in time. And if large amounts are being invested into this, possibly while at the same time cutting down possibilities to consume (see the Yellow Vests in France), political unrest and a further growth of the political Right may easily result. To which I should suggest as an alternative way the following: Instead of continuing in the belief that ”entrepreneurs will save us (at least when encouraged by the government with incentives)” one should see that having good ideas/suggestions and being good at organizing and raising money (in Peter Västerbacka style) are DIFFERENT talents which are not easily found in the same head. Which means that the search for good ideas should be handled SEPARATELY from the business of realizing those which are considered worth while. One can in this context remind that in the summer this year Jan Vapaavuori was, in a column in HBL, announcing that there would be this autumn a competition for ideas how to make Helsinki carbon neutral by 2035 (international participation, first prize 1 million, suggestions to burn biomass instead of coal not to be accepted …). Well, his secretary was meanwhile assuring me three times that there really would be that competition, but autumn is here and one does not hear or see anything of it. But the idea would in fact be very good: from the flood of the incoming ideas the experts in e.g. VTT would sort out those which could be worth developing further, the developed ideas could result in patents and in new and better technology (which could also be sold to other countries, for the benefit of Finland’s economy and also the world, which would get new tools to deal with the climate problem). Thus, if Jan Vapaavuori should have in mind to let the whole idea quietly die, then the representatives of other parties in the Helsinki town government should remind him loud and clear that they expect the idea to be realized. And if the idea should be left to die anyway, then some other parties could still take it up (what about a coalition of Vasemmisto and Greens?). After all, already a first prize of, say, 20.000 could be good enough to attract some bundles of good ideas (which one then would have to check and pursue further) … .
(d) About the implications of the digital economy I am (being 77 and pre-electronic) not competent to say anything. But this my comment may anyway be already long enough.