We are expected to believe that the capitalist nature of the cuts is the only way- the only way to progress and the only way to remove the deficit. Well, we buy that about as much as we buy that Nadine Dorries’ face is real. There has long been an argument between socialist and individualist, Labour and Conservative, Marx and Reagan. As promised, we shall not be patronising douche bags today, but go for straight up facts, so here are some of the arguments that we find most and least convincing, but worth a right giggle:
The bankers are estimated to be claiming £38m in bonuses this year. That is enough to keep over 11,000 people on Jobseekers allowance for a year, a handy stat to have, since the announcement today that 74,000 public sector workers are due to be axed in the new cuts plan for councils. This difference is not something you see across the board. The earning power of Doctor’s is seen to be significant but they train harder, for longer and must know more. When compared to bankers, they earn considerably less. The poor / rich divide in Britain is the highest it has been since the 30s!
It is a commonly understood fact from history, when the rich are seen to have too much money, they face serious contest. The poll tax “riots” and mass civil disobedience of the early 90s which saw the fall of Thatcher, as people announced by mass protest that they had, had enough of taxes, the poor being used to fund the decadence of the rich. The abusive nature of the ruling classes has not had a period since printed type became available to the serf’s, where it has not met resistance. It is the nature of humankind to get just enough and lose some of the zeal we have seen in previous revolutions. However, Engels, Durkheim and Marx all describe capitalisms strength lying in the fact that most of the time, most of the people, mostly have what they need and because of the selfish nature of competition, blame the people who don’t for being rubbish.
Now, we are not saying that this is definitely wrong, just that it is really stupid. There is a way for everyone to have enough to live well and the value of life would not be routed in puerile monetary value. The historic nature of capital wealth suggests time and again that there will always be rich people who want to be richer. The problem with capital interest that is not pure capitalism is that it is essentially ouroborosian in nature. As the rich get richer, they begin to compete with each other, which is suggested to naturalistically occur in a capitalist system and is actually the driving force in a capital based system. This competition leads to either the destruction or encouragement of monopolies. Once a monopoly takes hold, there is nothing to be done to counteract it, without another taking its place. This is totally unsustainable and the banks have long had a monopoly which is unsustainable. This is the reason there is £1.5tn missing from the economy. This money was used to prop up a failed system that insists upon eating itself and everyone it touches every twenty or so years. If we are to believe that a free market works, why on Earth would we need to keep something alive? Why would a system that is the best system of financial governance for the future, need such heavy support? Put simply, it wouldn’t.