tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84413497964575044322024-03-06T07:09:26.829+01:00ApophenaeonMats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-69763213741538475572011-06-08T11:23:00.010+02:002011-06-08T14:47:48.207+02:00Post-modern existential anxiety, or "When it all falls into place"Let me state right from the start that this post will be self-indulgent and somewhat exhibitionistic, and I'm not really saying anything particularly new or original. The reason, both for the content and this "disclaimer" should become obvious as we move along. Right then, with that out of the way let's get to it. I had a bit of a revelation today.<div><a name='more'></a><br /><div><!-- more --></div><div>Last night I (more or less) finished the paper I've been working on for the past - well, two weeks or so if I'm being honest. I actually began working on it roughly two months ago, but for reasons which - again - will become clear I didn't really do any proper work until those two weeks ago. Naturally I felt like a massive burden was lifted off my shoulders (...and Atlas shrugged eh?) after two months of pressure and guilty conscience over the fact that I hadn't worked as much as I felt I should, coupled with the ridiculus expectations I put on myself. The last two weeks were particularly gruesome (not just for me, but - I'm ashamed to say - also for my family). I then went on to consider how I've in fact lived with this constant pressure and tension since I picked up my studies again last August.</div><div><br /></div><div>This got me thinking. That pressure and tension comes from expectations. Expectations I have on myself, expectations others have on me and perhaps most of all, expectations I <i>imagine</i> others have on me. This puts me under constant evalutation and a demand to perform at all times. No wonder I've been feeling stressed out huh?</div><div><br /></div><div>But it gets better. My ideal profession would be as a part-time secondary school teacher in religion and philosophy, and part-time university lecturer. Yet, aren't those professions associated with a lot of pressure and tension, stemming from constant evaluation? Certainly the way there does. Doing a PhD, for instance, would entail (at least) four or five more years of studies, with even higher stakes. For a while I thought maybe I should finally abandon those ideas I had for my future profession. Disregard them as flights of fancy. Not for me.</div><div><br /></div><div>And then it hit me. Working as a teacher or lecturer, I might be under constant scrutiny and evaluation from pupils and students, sure. But I wouldn't be questioned in <i>the same way</i>. Having a PhD, a position as teacher and lecturer, I would have some kind of legitimacy. A sense of entitlement. Sure, I might still be questioned, but I would be questioned in <i>my role as teacher and lecturer</i>. To put it bluntly - those questioning would not be in a position of authority or power over me.</div><div><br /></div><div>From this, I deduced that perhaps I've been in the educational system for far too long. Being a pupil or a student - at least to me - entails being constantly questioned by someone in power or authority. There is (necessarily) a skewed power relation at play there. Considering I've been a pupil or student for more or less 25 years now (man, a quarter of a century - how about that?) and I constantly feel the need to justify myself, every single hour of every single day, no wonder I'm a bit of a wreck. Even during the year and a half or so that I was employed, I was employed at a <i>damned call center/customer support</i>! I mean - if there's any job where you are in an even worse position with regards to being questioned, I've yet to hear about it.</div><div><br /></div><div>So. Part of the problem then is that this constant questioning somehow strikes to the core of my being (to put it dramatically). But why is that so? Why is the core of my identity so entwined with how I perform in the eyes of others (or how I perform in <i>what I perceive as the eyes of others</i>, as it were)?</div><div><br /></div><div>As always when I consider things like this, I return to my early teens. For some reason I got in my mind that I should deconstruct myself. Yeah, I was a very precocious child. Or pretentious, if that makes you happier. I've always connected this with events in my earlier childhood, but I don't think I've really <i>understood</i> it until today. What I suspect is that I felt questioned, even challenged, and that it struck at the core of my identity. Which isn't too surprising, as a child's identity can be a pretty frail thing. As a way of protecting myself, I went on to deconstruct that core - to remove it from scrutiny or whatever. And then to rebuild myself. <i>Better</i>. <i>Stronger</i>. <i>Faster</i>. Or rather - smarter, sharper, more insightful.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, my identity then becomes built almost solely from <i>within</i>. I think, at that time, I was actually quite impressed with Ayn Rand (which, I realise as I write this, is probably why I detest her so much now, funny that). I looked to all sorts of self-help, self-realization stuff. I even read James Redfield! I also turned to a lot of Jungian psychology, chaos magick, qabbalah - hell, I took everything I could get. I was a bloody post-modern poster child.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now then. What happens when you put such a person through two decades of education? Well. You either get a complete breakdown on your hands, or an over-achieving yet constantly guilt-ridden and anxious person. I almost ended up as a complete breakdown. In 2001 I crashed and burned something awful. Went borderline psychotic and was on the brink of retreating into this "Shadowrealm" I'd crafted for myself. With a lot of cognitive behavioural therapy and medication I got out of it, eventually, in 2005. Since then, I've been able to keep things in check. At least until around this time last year.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'd had a PhD application rejected, and it naturally hit me hard. <i>Hard</i>. Because, while CBT and medication had kept me from descending into la-la land - the basic problem was still there. You see, for me my sense of self-worth, my fucking <i>raison d'etre</i>, is directly tied to my sense of intellectual capacity. If I'm not considered smart, I'm nothing. Of course, what others <i>actually</i> think of me matters little - what matters is what <i>I think</i> others think of me. Not so strange that I have a hard time putting down my thoughts in print, huh? Shit, my whole existence hinges on what I write being <i>perfect</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>While it's ironic that I've spent these past two decades studying and reading about psychology, education, existentialism, phenomenology, cognitive science, the post-modern situation and such - without actually applying it to myself, I guess that it's also pretty understandable. I mean, you don't see the beam in your own eye right? Too close to home?</div><div><br /></div><div>Do I have a point with this, or am I just telling my life-story? Well, I <i>do</i> have a point, actually.</div><div><br /></div><div>It occurred to me that one reason I've been seeking out all of these subjects is because they give me a sense of comfort. I'm not the only one struggling with these things (even if I've only been semi-conscious of my own struggle). And don't even get me started on chaos magick or the writings of Robert Anton Wilson. That's like the holy grail for kids shellshocked by the post-modern condition. The thing is though, these are all just tools I use to deal with what I can only describe as "post-modern existential anxiety" on a day-to-day basis. Floating devices for when you're lost in the vast and raging post-modern seas.</div><div><br /></div><div>These last couple of years, I've started gravitating towards complexity theory, constructivism and the branch of cognitive science established by Humberto Maturana and Fransisco Varela. Basically, what these perspectives advocate is a major shift in focus. From looking at "the things themselves" to "the relation between things". This immediately clicked with me, and I guess I realise why, now. To me, this perspective is the way out of the post-modern situation. There's an emphasis on ethical relations, rather than ethical objects. An emphasis on holism. A dissolution of the Cartesian dualism of body and mind, emotion and rationality.</div><div><br /></div><div>And, I firmly believe this, here lies the key to moving beyond the post-modern impasse. Post-modernism is not so much a considered response to perceived failures of modernism as it is a reflexive reaction. Or a resignation to a world that is changing faster and ever faster.</div><div><br /></div><div>This all also explains, to me, my political commitments. Consider that I badly feel the loss of belogning and affinities. I strongly feel I have no place in society, unless I can constantly prove myself intellectually in what I perceive as the eyes of others. That, if I fail in doing this, not only will I lose my place in society with regards to material needs - I will also lose my perceived value. Hell, at some level, I fear I'd even lose my family. Or at least lose the right to their respect and recognition.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given that I feel this way, and that I find comfort in the holistic and deeply environmentally aware ideas of thinkers such as Maturana, Varela, Fritjof Capra, Arne Naess, Riane Eisler and more - it's certainly no wonder that I gravitate towards green politics. I hesitate to psychologically analyse others (other than for fun), but I'd say similar reasoning can be applied to, for instance, right-wing nationalists. Only in their case, they do not embrace a relational ideal. Rather they try to cope with the post-modern situation through brute force. Rather than accepting the world as changing, they cling to dreams of old and attempt to halt it. Now, the choice between these two perspectives is, deeply and fundamentally, ethical and emotional.</div><div><br /></div><div>You might try to argue rationally for either view point - but I doubt you'd succeed. Not in any real sense at least. Sure, you might convince the person you're talking to - but at a conceptual level, no. Because let's face it - even if you could prove that a nationalist policy would lead to suffering and destruction, and that a green policy would lead to harmony and prosperity - there's a choice to be made. To claim that opting for the path which leads to suffering and destruction would be irrational is fine. But guess what? People <i>are irrational</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is an ethical question. This is because there is a choice involved, and when there's choice - real choice - there's <i>always</i> ethics. That's one thing the existentialists and post-modernists got right. It's probably their major contribution, as far as I'm concerned.</div><div><br /></div><div>Coming back to the question of politics as ethics, I would like to add that any political rhetoric which doesn't involve <i>both</i> an emotional and a rational aspect is badly flawed. This is nothing new, people like George Lakoff have talked about this for ages I know. But it never really sunk in for me until today. Using emotional arguments is sometimes considered bad, even dishonest. Why is this? I would trace it to that pesky Cartesian division of mind and body, or even further to the Platonic distinction of the physical world from the world of ideas. Here, body or the physical is bad - mind or the idea is good. Emotions, being related to the body, are bad or better still - <i>illusory</i>. Those fuckers <i>aren't even real</i>. And you want to argue towards an emotional aspect? You crazy person, you.</div><div><br /></div><div>Put differently - if emotions aren't even considered real, or valid expressions (at least on par with reasons and the rational) then sure, it might be dishonest to use emotional arguments. But emotions <i>are</i> real. When we make choices, most of the time we use an emotional judgement. Now, not even the most hardy rationalist would deny this (I suspect). What they would deny is the validity of those judgements. Rationality and reason reigns supreme, and anyone who opposes this is branded a heretic on the altar of Modernity. I exaggerate, but not by much. Any attack on rationality and reason is seen as a support for irrationality and unreason. As a support for those Dark Ages, when we all believed in God and Jesus was his son - hallelujah. This is because, within the modernist framework, everything is fundamentally dualistic - stemming from the division of body and mind, physical and idea.</div><div><br /></div><div>What I propose is to attack the idea of dualism. I am not saying that it's <i>wrong</i>, per se. But it is not the only valid perspective. This is because rationality and reason are not fundamental. We are not born with reason and rationality, it's something we learn. Or well, fine, we might be born with it - but that is either because we've learnt it in the womb (and that's <i>not</i> as kooky as it seems - consider that premature births aren't that uncommon, and would you claim that something miraculously happens in the moment of physical birth which enables cognitive functions?) or because we can, in fact, inherit cognitive structures and patterns from our parents. That is to say, social and biological life are not as divided as they're often made out to be. You not only pass on "biological" features to your children, you also pass on "social" features. (This might require a lot more explanation than I feel like typing - suffice to say that thoughts, ideas, concepts are cognitive structures or patterns while <i>at the same</i> time they are chemical structures in our brains. None of that "are thoughts physical or mental" or "nature vs. nurture" stuff, thankyouverymuch.)</div><div><br /></div><div>So, getting back on track. What is considered "emotion" is in fact primary, while "reason and rationality" are a "learned structuring of our cognitive process". At the same time, once we've "learned" reason and rationality it immediately begins to structure our emotions and our perceptions thus creating an instant feedback loop. As such, I imagine humans have probably had "reason and rationality" for a very, very long time. I might even go so far as to say that we've always had them - that we've inherited them from pre-human ancestors (no, not Tom Cruise's thetans). This does not mean that reason and rationality are ontologically prior to "emotions". Hell, they might even be coexistant in the way thoughts and brainwaves are. The point is, emotions are <i>not reducible to reason and rationality</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>This also means that, in a political debate, if you only engage with what you consider arguments grounded in reason and rationality - you will lose. Not necessarily in the way that you won't come out of it thinking "Hey, I totally pulverized that pundit!". You probably will. You might even have convinced whoever you debated with. But consider this: any political debate is public. You might be going around, trying to convince people one at a time that you're the bee's knees (oh how I've <i>longed</i> to use that in a sentence!) - and, honestly, good luck with that. Most likely you'll be using the public debate as a showcase or arena to let <i>others</i> know what you think, mean or want.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here it gets tricky. Some of the viewers might be, rationally, convinced by your eloquent arguments. These are most likely to be the ones who already agreed with you from the start. Perhaps a couple of the "uncertains" too. Your opponents however, and I wager a lot of those "uncertains" too, will not be swayed. Rather, they will see "their" representative being attacked with "fancy words" or "ridiculus environmental jingo-ism". When you ignore the emotionally grounded arguments of your opponent, you further denigrate and invalidate not only your opponent in the eyes of his or her "followers" - you also risk doing the same to those same followers indirectly.</div><div><br /></div><div>Both emotional <i>and</i> rational arguments are needed. And you need to <i>address</i> both kinds. Because trust me, your opponent most likely will. And because both kinds of argument are <i>valid</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>From all of this, it also seems obvious that any political conviction needs to be emotionally as well as rationally grounded, in order to be believable to others but also in order to be a genuine conviction. And it means that in the future, when I get upset that people "don't get" what I mean - I will try to add in the emotional arguments as well, to give them the whole picture and to be honest with what I mean and where I'm coming from.</div><div><br /></div><div>Remember the disclaimer? Well, it's not really aimed at you - the reader. It's aimed at me, It's part of my self-deprecating defense mechanism.</div></div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-12802576916173437172011-03-14T21:08:00.005+01:002011-03-14T23:02:19.747+01:00Renewable energy - problem or potentialThe earthquake outside Japan has got me thinking about genuinly clean and renewable energy sources. Regardless of your view on the risks of meltdowns in the Japanese powerplants, it should be obvious that nuclear powerplants aren't entirely safe - not to mention the dangers of uranium mining and disposal of nuclear waste. In addition to being environmentally hazardous, nuclear power - just as fossil power - is finite, localized and therefore controllable. As has been shown through numerous national and international conflicts, non-renewable energy is a constant potential source for geo-political strife and tension - but I believe it is also an obstacle we need to overcome if we are to achieve economic, social and ecological sustainability. There are also parallels with problems surrounding "intellectual property rights", the impact of mp3 technology on the music industry and WikiLeaks.<div><a name='more'></a><br /><div><!-- more --></div><div>Nuclear and fossil energy are associated with several problems. There is the issue of pollution, as a result of mining, usage and disposal - a problem which is aggravated as the respective resources become increasingly sparse, resulting in increasing prices and increasing environmental and social risks in mining. The issue of deep-sea mining of oil is a recent example, as are the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Nigeria.</div><div><br /></div><div>Our reliance on these kind of energy sources is also an ever present financial risk, as our entire manufacturing and consumerist economy is based on access to increasing amounts of energy. This is yet another source for escalating conflict, as has been shown in the recent North African uprisings - where both the EU and the US have taken a passive role, being dependant on a "stable" trading partner in for example Libya.</div><div><br /></div><div>The unprecedented economic growth in (mainly) the Western world of the past century, can to a large part be ascribed to our use of oil. And while one side of this growth is an equally unprecedented rise in living standards and life expetancy in the West, the other side is increasing economic inequality on a global scale. It has also made us almost oblivious to the environmental and social dangers of our current way of life.</div><div><br /></div><div>During the last 50 years or so, there has been a dawning realization that this cannot continue - yet we have not made nearly enough progress towards a shift to renewable energy. Given our advances in other areas this might seem odd, but looking at how our economic system works I suspect it is only all too logical.</div><div><br /></div><div>The simple truth is that there isn't enough money to be made from genuinly renewable energy.</div><div><br /></div><div>When you get down to it, renewable energy is essentially solar energy - in the form of solar power (or solar cells), water power or wind power. It is all various ways of harnessing the massive amount of solar energy which the Earth is bombarded with every day. Of course, fossil fuels such as oil or coal is also a kind of solar energy - but they are more like batteries, solar energy stored over millennia on the Earth in various forms. Unlike fossil fuels, the source for direct solar energy cannot be controlled. And unlike fossil fuels, it is not really subject to scarcity either.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, it is true that the amount of incoming solar energy which can be harnessed today is limited. While we might develop our technology further in the future, we cannot switch to renewable energy at present and still maintain our current energy consumption. This is often given as an argument against renewable energy. But that argument overlooks the fact that we cannot maintain our current energy consumption using fossil or nuclear fuels either - since we are running out of both fossil and nuclear fuels. And of course there are still the environmental and social hazards to take into account as well.</div><div><br /></div><div>We need to reduce the amount of energy used, which begs the question of fair distribution. Are the "developing" countries not be allowed access to the "Western way of life"? The short, and perhaps disheartening answer is "no". But this also means that we in the West cannot maintain our way of life. This falls back on the "pyramid scheme economics" currently employed, which I've written about in <a href="http://matsmonsen.blogspot.com/2011/02/growth-dogma.html">here</a>, <a href="http://matsmonsen.blogspot.com/2011/03/sustainable-labour-market.html">here</a> and <a href="http://matsmonsen.blogspot.com/2011/03/dangers-of-polarization.html">here</a>. Essentially, we need to stop living on credit.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I wrote above, renewable energy once fully developed is not subject to control or scarcity. What this means is that renewable energy cannot be assigned monetary value in a market economy. You can't make enough money from it to make it an interesting investment from a strictly financial point of view - and, in fact, it threatens the entire economic system. I believe this might be its biggest problem, but also its biggest potential.</div><div><br /></div><div>Compare with the issues of "intellectual property rights", the impact of mp3s on the music industry and the phenomena of WikiLeaks. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that with the advent of information technology, information can no longer be controlled. It is possible to spread and duplicate at staggering speeds. Yes, it is true that the infrastructure can be controlled - it is a physical medium. But the source content is not bound to any particular medium. What this means is that information is increasingly slipping out of the market economy. At the moment the music industry, intelligence communities and patent holders are fighting a losing battle against "pirates" and "spies" - but eventually we as a society need to come to grips with and adjust to the situation, unless we impose strict control of all information.</div><div><br /></div><div>For the intelligence communities I would say openess is the answer. It might be utopian, but I believe that were we to move away from our current social structure, we might not need covert operations - at least not in the same way.</div><div><br /></div><div>When it comes to intellectual property rights and musicians, I believe the necessary shift from an economics of scarcity and control will provide a solution. Precisely how, I don't really know. If I did I guess I'd be a Nobel Laureate. But perhaps some form of citizen's pay might be a viable route.</div><div><br /></div><div>Coming back to the question of renewable energy, what has traditionally been seen as a problem I believe can actually be turned into a promising potential. Renewable energy is basically free. Yes, there is the infrastructure and maintenance costs but the infrastructure is basically a one-time expense and maintenance I can't see as much of a problem - it is not a new cost at any rate, but one which we have today for our current energy sources. This leaves the question of initial development investment. And herein lies the problem. Since there is no promise of future returns, under a market economy there is no incentive to invest. Yet we constantly hear politicians place their trust in the "free market" to bring forth a shift to renewable energy. This makes no sense. Especially when you consider the long term.</div><div><br /></div><div>Because what would happen if our basic source of energy was, for all intents and purposes, free? Energy companies make for a vast part of the economy, directly but also indirectly in that a large part of what we pay for goods is the energy cost. If, as we have to, we start recycling rather than exploiting new resources the main cost of production will be energy. The prices of consumer goods would plummet, with a disastrous effect on GNPs worldwide. Removing energy from the economy would make drastic changes, with enormous consequences for the "free market" which our politicians expect to bring about that same change.</div><div><br /></div><div>Still, were we to make this shift, and I believe we must - we would open up for an entirely new way of life and an economy based not on scarcity and control but rather on mutual, sustainable development.</div><div><br /></div><div>This collapse of our economic system might be considered a problem by some people. To me, it looks like the potential for a very bright future.</div></div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-12758238693197983562011-03-09T19:43:00.002+01:002011-03-09T21:13:38.603+01:00The dangers of polarizationLast year, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better">The Spirit Level</a> by Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett made some (although not enough) impact on the Swedish pre-election debates and campaigns. About 6 months earlier, Tim Jackson's report <a href="http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/redefining-prosperity.html">Prosperity Without Growth</a> surfaced as well, regrettably without making almost any noise over here. In April of last year, the Gulf of Mexico was hit by disaster on a major scale with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP_oil_spill">BP oil spill</a>, and for half a century there's been an on-going oil spill - dwarfing what happened in the Gulf - in the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell">Niger Delta</a>. Add to this a massive global financial crisis, two Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the Darfur genocide in Sudan and countless other catastrophies as well as a global climate change escalating out of control. At the same time, we are witnessing a severe social, economic and political polarization. This all ties together.<div><a name='more'></a><!-- more --><br /><div><!-- more --></div><div>I just watched a segment of <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/9/my_fear_is_that_climate_change">Democracynow.org</a>, where <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein">Naomi Klein</a> (author of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine">The Shock Doctrine</a>") talks about the danger, not only of a climate change that is very much real, but also of the polarization of political and social debate. Basically, what she argues is that the reason "belief" in climate change has gone down (from 71% among Americans to roughly 50%, in just a couple of years - a trend which is unfortunately global, in countries with polarized political debates) can partly be found in this polarization. What happens is that climate change has become a "partisan political issue" - it is no longer to do with science, but rather to do with ideology. "Climate change" is turning into an identity issue, along with pretty much the entire environmental movement. The people identifying themselves with the right now consider "climate change" a "socialist plot to redistribute wealth".</div></div><div><br /></div><div>There might, however, be at least some truth to the question about redistribution of wealth. I've argued before that an unequal distribution of wealth - and, in fact, the entire current economic system - is also a question about ecology and ecological sustainability. Klein also suggests something along these lines, claiming (rightly, I believe) that the solutions to climate change and our global ecological disaster are at odds with current right wing policies. What Wilkinson and Pickett say about equal societies having a positive influence on health and general well-being of the people living in those societies, also apply to the environment. Basically, an unequal society, a society driven by competition for resources erodes not only trust and health but also the environment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Closely linked is the issue of growth, as measured in GNP. A system, such as the one we currently operate, based on indefinite economic growth seem to presuppose scarcity, overlook detrimental ecological effects (the BP spill, for instance, would generate quite a lot of GNP), add to economic inequality, accumulate resources "upwards" while sucking in resources from the bottom. At the same time, it is claimed that the current system would somehow be able to counter inequality, or at least raise the living standards of everyone - even if it raises the standards more for those at the top. This is simply not true.</div><div><br /></div><div>It would only be able to raise everyone's living standard if we had infinite resources, since the system functions by siphoning resources upwards in a pyramid structure and eventually we run out of resources. A counter argument to this is that everyone has an equal opportunity to reach the top, which again simply is not true - and even it were true, we are still talking about a pyramid structure here, there can be only a limited number of people at the top at any one given time.</div><div><br /></div><div>This might be thought to be an argument in favour of socialism, and I guess depending on your definitions it might well be. But I would ask you to keep in mind that the pyramid structure - which is really a facet of dominator societies - can be, and often has been, present even in socialist societies. And it is the pyramid structure I would argue against.</div><div><br /></div><div>Tying this to the question of polarization, what we see is a polarization of society versus individual and the false dichotomy between the two. This false dichotomy is effectively blocking our way forwards. As it is, the political debate tends to revolve around either increased governmental control or increased individual freedoms. We see this in the Swedish debate, perhaps primarily from the neo-liberal Center party and the highly conservative Christian Democrats who both argue for increased individual freedoms and contrasts this with governmental control. There is a lot of talk about the "limits of politics". Yet this argument is only valid if you make a clear distinction between the two.</div><div><br /></div><div>And here, once again, the polarization comes into play. There are people, primarily on the right, who identify themselves not only with the belief that climate change is a hoax, but also that it is a (socialist) governmental conspiracy. Added to this is the firm belief that "the government" is some far away, mysterious and shadowy entity out to do them harm. Now, rather than opting for policies of increased transparency and an increased political commitment, they want to do away with government as much as possible. But why?</div><div><br /></div><div>The government, and by extension society and politics, is what we make it. If we fall into the belief that the government is some other entity, distanced from us, then that is what it will become. This exact same reasoning is behind xenophobia, racism and the dismantling of both civil rights and social welfare systems. It is polarization and alienation between individuals. Looking at our environmental crisis, we find the same thing. We consider ourselves apart from nature, rather than a part of nature, we objectify nature and make it out to be a controllable, static "other" - which it is not. The distinction between "man" and "nature" is at the core of the dominator mindset, along with the Cartesian distinction between "body" and "mind".</div><div><br /></div><div>Looking again at Swedish policy, it is worth noting that unemployed, immigrants, sick and marginalized people are all bundled together into an undefined group of "outsiders". The people who are not "us" and who wish to take what we have. This same message bombards us daily, through news, television shows, movies and other media. I would say this is a logical conclusion to extreme individualization, where the only acceptable community is the one which seeks affirmation and confirmation from within, from looking towards what sets us apart - rather than from looking outwards towards what unites us - with each other as human beings and ultimately as being part of a greater web of life, spanning the planet in it's entirety.</div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-73429779909498687872011-03-05T22:33:00.006+01:002011-03-07T23:06:15.345+01:00A sustainable labour marketThe labour market, and also labour market policies, today aren't really working. In many (Western) countries, unemployment rates are rising, there is a worrying shift in demographics where it seems a shrinking work force are required to provide services (as well as taxed labour) to an growing number of retirees, increased automatization as well as relocation ("outsourcing") of jobs are removing work opportunities. At the same time, overtime is increasing (and recently the government has even suggested that it become easier to order overtime), the wage gap between low and high income jobs increases, and cheap oil - a prerequisite for much of the aformentioned automatization - seem to be becoming a thing of the past.<div><a name='more'></a></div><div>Our current Swedish government seem to have a couple of ideas to counter this. I believe most of them are seriously misguided, and even counter-productive or downright dangerous.</div><div><br /></div><div>What seems to be the most important tactic is the so-called "work line". This is an old idea in Swedish politics, originally championed by the Social Democrats in the early half of the 20th century. In our current, right-wing, government's version this amounts to providing incentive to get a job, preferrably "qualified" work involving a long education and yielding high income. It is also meant to discourage people from being unemployed - when unemployment benefits are too high, many people rather stay unemployed than get a job. Or so the thinking goes. That might be a valid argument if we didn't have record-high unemployment, but as it is, being unemployed isn't exactly a matter of choice.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is another idea here as well. Lower income taxes, which is what is done to provide the incentive, supposedly leaves more money over for consumption. The increase in consumption is meant to lead to an increase in production, which in turn is meant to ensure an increase in work opportunities. Whether this policy even leads to an increase in consumption not might be debated - I would argue that it is only true for the higher income bracket, since for the rest any "extra money in the pocket" goes towards higher costs elsewhere - but it does amount to an increase in consumption and this raises two issues. First, a lot of people choose not to spend that extra money, rather they save it for unforeseen expenses. Second, an economy based on increasing consumption is one of the prime underlying causes of our current global economic and ecological crisis.</div><div><br /></div><div>Obviously, in a global economy, it isn't even certain (or even likely) that an increase in domestic consumption will lead to an increase in domestic production jobs.</div><div><br /></div><div>A third reasoning behind these policies has been more or less hinted at, and that is to lower the wage cost for employers. Lower income taxes mean that employers can get away with lower wage raises. Also, with a growing number of people to recruit from, what we get is a "buyer's market" when it comes to hiring workers. This is added to by suggestions from the government that our minimum wage is set too high, thus creating a threshold for entry to the labour market.</div><div><br /></div><div>What we are left with is a labour policy which is ecologically unsustainable in that it is entirely based on increased consumption and production. It is socially unsustainable in that it actively promotes inequality and increased wage gaps, in order to create "incentive". It might, however, be economically sustainable given our current economic system. The problem is that our entire current economic system is an ecologically and socially unsustainable pyramid scheme.</div><div><br /></div><div>It also strikes me as odd that the only part of these policies which is sustainable is the one which pertains to the economic system, which is the one system we could actually change if wanted to (unlike the ecological system, which is our primary system or realm of existence - and to some extent also the social system).</div><div><br /></div><div>Are there alternatives then? I believe so. We need to rethink our view of the labour market, shift away from an economy based on the twin-engine of consumption-production and start taking ecological and social sustainability seriously. This also means taking solidarity seriously, a solidarity stemming from the realisation that we are all connected.</div><div><br /></div><div>So what does this mean? For starters, work needs to be shared. In a short-term perspective, this will most likely mean more people working fewer hours - although once oil prices spike, we might need to increase the workload somewhat, to counter the loss of "energy slaves", at least until we have been able to shift from a fossil-based economy (and this shift will bring about other massive changes).</div><div><br /></div><div>We need to re-evaluate a lot of non-wage labour. Today a lot of work is being done outside the visible labour market, primarily "household work", and a lot of jobs are seriously undervalued, in particular "care work". This must change, and it would also mean a shift from energy intensive production work (such as manufacture of home electronics or the weapons industry) to work requiring little or no energy (such as repairs, recycling, child care and so on). Not only would this be a positive development when it comes to the labour market, but also other areas such as resource use and a shift from dominator to partnership ideals.</div><div><br /></div><div>When it comes to re-evaluating wage labour, especially with regards to "household work", the Swedish government has launched one initiative - tax breaks for utilising household services. However, the way this is done almost entirely benefits those with high incomes. I suspect this is due to the simulatenous erosion of solidarity, where we are made to think only of ourselves and our own wallet - being told that solidarity is paramount to communism, unless it is solidarity with a very narrow and limited scope. It is as if these so-called "liberals" have confused the emphasis on individual rights with a sole focus on individuals, ignoring and striving to get rid of the communal. But just as a community cannot exist without individuals, so an individual cannot exist without a community.</div><div><br /></div><div>We also need to stop trying to change people in order to make them fit in a rigid labour market. Rather, we ought to look to change the labour market so that it suits the people. This is one thing I find especially puzzling. A supposedly liberal government wants to impose change on people, rather than the market (which is really just a convenient tool invented by people to serve the interest of those same people). Not saying that people shouldn't have responsibilities, but the balance definitely needs to shift here.</div><div><br /></div><div>I want to suggest two books, from where I've taken a lot of inspiration and which discuss these topics at great lengths and a lot more lucidly and elegantly than could ever hope to. First, there's Fritjof Capra's "Hidden Connections" which successfully adapts Capra's systemic view of (biological) life to include the (uniquely?) human social dimension. Second, there's Riane Eisler's "The Real Wealth of Nations", which sketches an alternative to our current economic dogma, emphasising partnership rather than domination.</div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-23800854856720702622011-02-24T14:14:00.005+01:002011-02-24T14:49:31.134+01:00The Growth DogmaJust read an <a href="http://www.effektmagasin.se/revolten-i-mellanostern-utmanar-tillvaxtideologin">article</a> in Swedish magazine <a href="http://www.effektmagasin.se/om-effekt">Effekt</a> about the connection between what's happening in the Middle East and the currently dominating "growth dogma". In short, the writer suggests that world leaders are hesitant to support the people of the Middle East in their uprising, because this might lead to a severe rise in oil prices - and that rising oil prises, while being a potential problem for households, is a major problem for an economy based on eternal economic growth. Our current economy essentially runs on access to cheap oil. One question posed in the article is why the issue of growth (or rather, the critique of our current "growth dogma") is so taboo. I have some thoughts.<div><a name='more'></a><br /><div><!-- more --></div><div>It would seem obvious that eternal growth in a world of finite resources is, to say the least, unsustainable. In fact it is entirely impossible. So what gives? Common arguments are that we have no alternative. That despite problems, the way our economy functions at the moment is the only viable alternative. Well, it isn't. I'm certainly not saying a transition to a different arrangement, a different kind of economics, would be easy. But it is not the only viable alternative - because it simply <i>isn't a viable alternative at all</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Another argument is that our current economic model is somehow inevitable. That it's somehow rooted deep in human nature - we might <i>wish</i> to change it, but we simply cannot. That's ridiculus. Our current economic system is man-made, it runs on values and towards goals that are set by man (or perhaps I should say "men"). It stands to reason that if we could chose these particular set of guiding values, we could also chose another. The economic system is not given by "God" or "nature".</div><div><br /></div><div>Some claim that our current system is a good system, since it's taken us so far. And I won't argue that it hasn't vastly improved the living conditions of millions of people. It has. But look at the cost. Look at the flipside - in many countries we enjoy a standard of living which even former kings and emperors could only have dreamed of, while at the same time millions, even billions, of people suffer hunger, disease, wars and exploitation. Not only is this a regrettable side-effect of our current system - it is a prerequisite. Because just as the economic system hinges on cheap access to oil, it also hinges on inequalities - both social and economical.</div><div><br /></div><div>Our economic system is geared towards profit maximization, towards facilitating the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. Essentially, our global economy functions like a pyramid scheme. And the justification for this is that the rich are supposed to pull the poor up along with them, so that any raising of living standards for the few is also reflected in a raise of living standards for the many - even if it isn't as big a raise. The argument that even if the rich are getting richer, the poor are also getting (ever so slightly) richer as well. And here's the problem. This entire argument is based on the fallacy of eternal economic growth. Because what happens when the people at the top hit the proverbial ceiling? When there are no longer any more resources to suck into the pyramid?</div><div><br /></div><div>We've in fact been at that point for some time now, it's just that for the most part we in the rich (Western) part of the world don't see it. This is because we've been busy sucking in resources from the rest of the world. Of course, no one wants to hear this - and not just the people at the top in, say, Sweden. Because it isn't just the people at the top expoliting the rest - Sweden, as a whole, is part of the "top" on a global scale.</div><div><br /></div><div>I believe this is closely tied to another problem - one which I keep coming back to. Because at the heart of the "growth dogma" we find the "dominator mindset". The critique of eternal growth isn't just a critique of the economic system - it is a critique of fundamental core values which have guided our social world for thousands of years. The idea that mankind is essentially and intrinsically geared towards domination - of an outside world and of each other. This is often met with the argument that it's simply "human nature" - but again, that is not a valid argument. Humans can change - there is no such thing as a given "human nature". We are what we chose to be.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is time we woke up to that.</div></div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-64720801797256374192011-02-23T21:52:00.004+01:002011-02-25T09:39:33.699+01:00PRODUKT - Revolt . Conquer . Consume (2010)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3vU54jw5CvhNam-RKRgJiDtgMrsvo4JpLojzI6YwVCFqFQH8TRd0QCJh1TYPiYs_h5RNsPGfhnSvxJjB7dX1HImGasrkZkG9-NcDTep86r55Eov6zeCQ73fyXJybX_FXjAA-oYgudiLnO/s1600/cover.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 170px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 169px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5576991023210907314" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3vU54jw5CvhNam-RKRgJiDtgMrsvo4JpLojzI6YwVCFqFQH8TRd0QCJh1TYPiYs_h5RNsPGfhnSvxJjB7dX1HImGasrkZkG9-NcDTep86r55Eov6zeCQ73fyXJybX_FXjAA-oYgudiLnO/s200/cover.jpg" /></a>"Revolt . Conquer . Consume" is the debut album of Sean "Satyr" Tracy's <strong>PRODUKT</strong> - a New York based machine rock/electro-goth hybrid. While it might be a debut, don't mistake Sean for a rookie or PRODUKT for an entirely new band - prior to starting up PRODUKT in 2004 Sean put in time as guitarist for, among others, Florida based industrial rock act <strong>Grim Fairies</strong> (with Curse Mackey of <strong>Evil Mothers</strong> fame on vocals) as well as doing remix work for the likes of <strong>Society Burning</strong> (see review <a href="http://matsmonsen.blogspot.com/2010/10/society-burning-internal-combustion.html">here</a>), <strong>Cyanotic</strong> and <strong>How To Destroy Angels</strong>. So what of "Revolt . Conquer . Consume"? <div><a name='more'></a><!-- more --><br /><div><!-- more --></div><div>Well, I've had the album on my "to review" shortlist for a couple of months now, and while part of the delay is down to me just not getting my thumb out, part of it is due to me not being quite able to pin the album down.</div><div><br /></div><div>Don't get me wrong. This is a good disc, great in fact, but it took me a while to adjust to and I wanted to really do it justice. Perhaps the mixture of machine rock and electro-goth doesn't sound too strange, but what Sean has done here comes across as original - at least to me. There are several ways of breaking the album down, and I think that might be what threw me at first. This might lead to a disjointed album, but what keeps it together is how all the different influences still blend together. I'll try to explain.</div><div><br /></div><div>What struck me first was the division in what might be called machine rock, rhythmic and guitar-based ("I Am Destruktion", "Cyanide + Candy", "Decay", "Machine", "Binary Incendiary" and "Choke") and electro-goth, more melodic and often piano-based ("Perpetual Bliss", "The Abstract", "Embers", "Secret Manipulation", "Black Ashes" and "Absolute"). Another division can be found between aggressive ("I Am Destruktion", "Machine", "Binary Incendiary"), angry or even bitter ("Cyanide + Candy", "Choke" and to some extent "Decay"), melancholy ("Embers", "Black Ashes") and even soothing ("The Abstract", "Secret Manipulation", "Absolute"). Also some tracks, such as "I Am Destruktion", "Decay" and "Binary Incendiary" shift between pounding machine rock and the more atmospheric electro-goth, and there's some trip hop influences - most notably on "The Abstract" as well as some glitchy drum 'n bass vibes, particularly on "I Am Destruktion" and "Machine".</div><div><br /></div><div>While the music and lyrics range from aggressive to melancholy and soothing, the underlying mood is dark and dystopian throughout - so we're left with an album at the same time diverse and coherent. The diversity makes it difficult to pick favourite tracks - it varies a lot with what kind of mood I find myself in - but I'm quite partial to the mechanical (both musically and lyrically) "Machine" and "Binary Incendiary", the groovy almost funky "Cyanidy + Candy" and "Decay" as well as the hauntingly beautiful "Embers" and "Secret Manipulation".</div><div><br /></div><div>If I have any complaint, it would be that the production could have packed more of a punch. On the other hand, this album has a very DIY feel (Sean has written and played everything himself, except for "Secret Manipulation" where DJ Cybo did the lyrics and vocals) and that is part of the charm - giving the album a raw, underground feel.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'd really recommend this to any fan of machine rock/electro-goth - and even if you're only a fan of just one of the styles, you're sure to find at least half an album suited to your particular taste and another half which will grow on you and introduce you to new things.</div><div><br /></div><div>You can get the album on CD from <a href="http://vampirefreaks.com/produktmusic">here</a>, and digitally from <a href="http://produkt.bandcamp.com/">here</a>. Both sites offer full previews as well. So... what are you waiting for?</div></div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-90749285822702460842011-02-22T13:05:00.004+01:002011-02-22T13:38:19.287+01:00Making sense of Maher?Against better judgment, I watched a <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-slams-muslim-mens-treatment-of-women-gets-heckled-by-audience-member/">clip of Bill Maher</a> bashing Islam and Muslim men. It is a truly hateful and bigoted tirade he spews, but somewhere deep in the mess Maher actually does have a point - at least if you cut him a lot of slack.<div><a name='more'></a><br /><div><!-- more --></div><div>He says that democracy is only possible once you've "tamed men", and while the image of "savage man" and "docile woman" should be offensive to both women and men, there is a point in there. For at least the last two thousand years (probably longer), most societies have been guided by a principle of domination. This comes across in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of all societies and cultures across the globe.</div><div><br /></div><div>Man seeks domination over nature, trying to "tame Mother Earth" and bend her to his will, using technology to control and manipulate. Men seek domination over women and other men further down the social ladder, in order to further their place in the social world. Neither the way we treat nature or each other can ever lead to a sustainable future - instead it leads to exploitation and power struggles. Sure, we can patch it up somewhat - and many democracies today are vast improvements over older feudal or dictatorial societies. But we're still running blindly towards disaster.</div><div><br /></div><div>If we wish to achieve sustainable societies for ourselves and future generations, we need to change some of our fundamental values. And I do mean "we". This applies to every society. But the domination paradigm is deeply rooted, both in our social institutions and values and also in our world views and even our language. We think of the world as something separate from us, something "out there" for us to "control". This is evident in the atomistic and mechanistic world views of Descartes, Bacon and Newton.</div><div><br /></div><div>Luckily, there is another way. Since the early 20th century, it has become increasingly clear that this old view of the world is flawed, and that rather than an atomistic mechanical world, we live in a holistic, relational world. At the core, it is about switching from a view of domination to one of partnership. From what has been seen as a set of "traditionally male" values, to a set of what has been seen as "traditionally female" values. For instance, rather than trying to bend nature to do our bidding, we ought to learn from and emulate nature. Rather than valueing skills and knowledge geared towards control, destruction and killing - how about we value skills and knowledge geared towards the promotion of life?</div><div><br /></div><div>Returning to Maher, when he talks about "taming man" he is still stuck in the "dominator mindset", although he does have a point. We need to move away from the way of thinking that looks towards differences and of ways to correct those differences, and instead start looking towards similiarties, connections and of ways to emulate what works.</div></div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-76635942195135470412011-02-21T21:59:00.006+01:002011-02-21T22:48:59.283+01:00The Champions of Democracy?For the past couple of weeks, all around the world we've been able to follow the struggles of people in Northern Africa and the Middle East - from Tunisia to Egypt, from Libya to Bahrain - as they rise up against dictators, protesting unjust and undemocratic regimes. While it is still too early to tell what will come from these revolts, it obvious that the protestors are being met with truly excessive force. Today, there's been reports of fighter jets being deployed in Libya and the past week has seen heavy causalities in both Libya and Bahrain. Where is the unanimous and strong condemnations of the actions of these dictators? Why are the staunch, self-proclaimed (and self-righteous) Champions of Democracy suddenly so quiet and reluctant to make comments?<div><a name='more'></a><!-- more --><!-- more --><br /><div><!-- more --></div><div>The Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, who was deeply involved with Lundin Petroleum, formerly Lundin Oil, in their <a href="http://www.energy-pedia.com/article.aspx?articleid=140674">questionable actions in Sudan</a> and who primarily uses his blog and Twitter feed to communicate with the press, chose not to voice any critique of the regime in Tunisia or Egypt. With regards to the weekend's events in Libya, <a href="http://dagensarena.se/nyheter/carl-bildt-om-libyen-vill-inte-stodja-den-ena-eller-andra-sidan%E2%80%9D/">he says</a> that "it is not about supporting this or that side, it is about achieving stability and a reasonable development" and also goes on to say that "we have reason to say we share [the worry of South European countries' worry about refugees]".</div><div><br /></div><div>So. Bildt would like to see stability and a reasonable development in Libya (and, I assume, the other North African and Middle East countries) - and he seem to be of the opinion that dictators such as Muammar al-Gaddafi can provide this. Why else would he refrain from criticizing al-Gaddafi? It seems to me, then, that the stability and reasonable development Bildt wants to see is not primarily one which benefits the people living in Libya, but rather one which benefits European interests. This is all the more evident when considering what he says about the potential stream of refugees.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, Bildt also talks about solidarity. He says that solidarity is a fundamental part of the European cooperation. Very touching. How about solidarity with the rest of the world?</div><div><br /></div><div>I find it odd that the same people who had no qualms rushing into Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming they fought for democracy, remain suspiciously quiet this time around. Could it be that Saddam Hussein and the warlords of Afghanistan (no doubt horrid dictators as well) simply refused to play ball with the EU and the US? And that people such as Mubarak and al-Gaddafi are on much better terms with those same Western super powers? Could it be that keeping those North African and Middle Eastern countries in check, even if that means using dictators and indirectly oppressing the people living there, goes well with protecting the foreign interests of the EU and the US?</div><div><br /></div><div>Carl Bildt says it is not about taking sides. I agree, it isn't. It is about standing up against oppression. It is about having the guts and the common sense to condemn a regime which uses jet fighters against demonstrators. If Bildt wasn't as blinded by greed and oil, he might understand that.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Oh. And did I forget to mention that we tried selling Libya military surveillance equipment to help al-Gaddafi with border control? And that the European Union considers Libya a valuable ally in helping us enforce our own border controls?</div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-26936249536615273512011-02-08T20:39:00.003+01:002011-02-08T21:31:53.105+01:00Changing the game?I'm getting really fed up with all of these "free market liberals" and proponents of infinite economic growth. No one likes waking up to the fact that the way we current live is fundamentally flawed, but the fact that it sucks is not a valid argument against changing our way of life.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />The belief in the free market is flawed on two critical points. The way I understand it, the idea of the free market is justified partly because it supposedly guarantees a fair distribution of resources. This hinges on the idea of the rational agent, on the idea that people can (and do) make rational choices. If that was really the case, then how come advertising is such big business? The point of advertising is to influence supposedly rational agents into acting, not according to their own rational wishes, but rather according to whoever employs the advertising agencies. Making rational choices would entail being fully informed, something which advertising is meant to counter. But even worse, according to recent findings within cognitive science the idea of the "rational agent" seems to be little more than a myth.<br /><br />Worse than that though, is the fact that the supply and demand mechanics of a free market is based on the fact that what we trade is actual resources. Resources which we currently have. Yet todays free market doesn't deal in this kind of resources - it deals in potential, expected resources. It is not a market of commodity, it is a market of credit. Now, if we lived in a world of infinite resources - and if we could ensure that we all came into the world on equal terms - perhaps that wouldn't be so much of a problem (I'm not even sure of that though). The problem, of course, is that we don't. Our resources are, for all practical purposes, finite and we're already deeply overdrawn. There can be no real balance of supply and demand under these circumstances.<br /><br />These two facts seem very difficult for a lot of people to grasp. And frankly I don't blame them. It's not a pretty picture, but that doesn't make it any less real.<br /><br />I keep hearing (and reading) arguments along the lines of: "Well, sure, the oil dependency is bad and we need to get out of it. However, currently we can't afford to." Essentially, what these people are saying is that they understand we can't keep doing what we're doing, but they won't change the way they live because it would be inconvenient. The question is made out to be one of choice - either we change the way we live, or we change the way the world works. News for ya' - only one of those is subject to change.<br /><br />We desperately need to change the rules of the game here, yet it seems to me we're going in the opposite direction. Looking at Sweden as an example, the current government is contemplating selling our carbon credits (which would effectively nullify all the progress we've made with regards to emissions); seem to be favourable towards prospecting for oil on the North Pole (since, as we've already established - we "can't afford" to move away from fossil fuels and oil dependency); and stick to an obsolete overall financial and labour market policy, which is based around the idea of "consuming our way out of the crisis".<br /><br />Not saying we need to abandon the idea of the market - but we do need to adjust for a couple of things. If we want to see a fair distribution of resources (and I do, partly because it's the "right thing" and partly because I believe it's necessary for an ecologically, economically and socially sustainable society) we need to revise our market rules, taking into account the fact that humans aren't the rational agents we're made out to be. And if we want to have a planet left to live on, we also need to revise our market rules so that we don't trade in credits anymore.Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-63015769860334704142011-01-27T12:32:00.003+01:002011-01-27T13:30:51.915+01:00The liberal challengeThere's been a (quite modest) discussion in Sweden regarding liberalism, and about who carries the liberal legacy, between representatives of the "traditional" liberal party (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkpartiet">folkpartiet</a>) and the socio-liberal green party (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milj%C3%B6partiet">miljöpartiet</a>). What stuck out to me was the question of whether state-owned businesses can be defended from a liberal point of view. Without actively labelling myself a "liberal" (although I guess in some ways I am) I would argue that the traditional view, that this is impossible, is flat-out wrong. Furthermore, it goes to show how the traditional view of liberalism is not just misguided, it is also highly conservative.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />It is true that early liberals, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith">Adam Smith</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill">John Stuart Mill</a> were opposed to state-ownership. But what you need to keep in mind here is that Smith (1723-1790) and Mill (1806-1873) lived in a vastly different time and environment than we do today. It would be stretching things not a little bit to claim that Great Britain in their time was a democracy -citizens had very little influence over the state and how it worked, so naturally they would be opposed to state-owned business and in favour of private ownership. Increasing and supporting private ownership was a way of further liberating individual citizens, giving them more control over their own lives - which would be a central idea in liberalism.<br /><br />Contrast that with the situation we've got today. Most countries, not just in the "Western world", are vastly more democratic, with citizens having at least the potential for long-ranging influence over the state and how it is run. I won't deny that liberals such as Smith and Mill and their ideas have played a great part in this, but equally it's undeniable that socialist ideas such as public education and healthcare and, more broadly, the welfare state have played a vital part. The end-result is that in many ways we, as individual citizens, have been "liberated" and the same is true, in some ways, of the state itself.<br /><br />Today the state is made up of, created by and controlled by the citizens - to varying degrees of course - but through general elections, transparency and accountability we citizens, as a people, have seized control of the state. Sure, there's corruption and such, and likely always will be, but the situation is nowhere near that of the 18th and 19th century. The state is no longer a distant "other" which controls us, other than in the minds of the most paranoid. It is open to public scrutiny and control.<br /><br />Today, we as individual citzens collectively own any and all companies owned by the state. Wasn't the original idea that private-ownership was there to give individual citizens more freedom and control over their lives? Well, we as citizens have more control over state-owned business than we do over private-owned. If anything, the "liberal" problem today should be the lack of insight and transparency of private-owned businesses and conglomerates (as well as the lack of insight and transparency into government affairs). I'm not saying that every business should be run by the state - what I'm saying is that state-ownership shouldn't be a problem for liberals.<br /><br />So why the reluctance towards state-owned and -run business? I can think of two reasons, neither of them valid. For one, it might be that "traditional" liberals, in fact, do not think that we live in a democratic society, where the state (and also government) is controlled by its people. It is true that we lack full insight, but in most cases this is due to a lack of interest and knowledge. The solution to that should be to stimulate interest and provide knowledge. When confronted with the charge that private-owned companies are less than transparent, the liberal reply is often "well, you can always become a shareholder". While this is not always as easy as it is made out to be, the argument is even better suited towards transparency of the state. "Well," I would argue, "you can always involve yourself politically".<br /><br />The other reason for the reluctance towards state-owned and -run business, is "tradition". Liberals are so used to the idea that state-owned and -run business is wrong, that they no longer reflect upon the reasons behind it. It has become a fixed tenet or belief, and they fail to see how circumstances today are different to those during Smith's and Mill's time. They have lost track of the basic liberal ideals or aims, and instead cling to the consequences and means of those same ideals. They have, in effect, become conservatives rather than liberals.<br /><br />But even the basic ideals of liberalism might need to be refined. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the old saying "no man is an island" is true. We need to remember not just the social and political circumstances of the 18th and 19th century, but also the world-view. Society in those days was highly influenced by a Cartesian-Newtonian dualistic-mechanical view of the world. There was a definite split between the mind and the body, as well as between "the individual" and "the society". This split, I believe, lies at the root of many of the challenges facing us today. Bridging that gap means realising that "the individual" and "the society" are not two opposing factors, they're not really even two different perspectives. They are one and the same, and you can't have one without the other.<br /><br />In a way, the liberals won. First in their struggle against an oppressive (and highly un-democratic) state, and then in their struggle against what turned into an equally oppressive and dictatorial perversion of Marx' socialist ideas. But in their victory, in the "victory of the individual", we now risk going too far in the opposite direction.<br /><br />It is often claimed, from the "political left", that our current right-wing government is tearing Sweden apart. Generally what is referred to is the growing inequality, both financial and social. But what is also happening is that our society (and this is not limited to Sweden alone, of course) is being torn apart in that the <em>individual</em> is torn away from the <em>collective</em>. We need to bridge not just the social and economic gap, but also the gap within ourselves, between "man and nature". This <em>ought</em> to be the liberal challenge in the 21st century. And this is the challenge which Green Parties all over the world are accepting.<br /><br />It is not about who can "manage" the "liberal heritage" - that can only lead to stagnating conservatism - it is about who can deal with the challenges we face.Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-80749780616080804482010-11-12T19:21:00.003+01:002010-11-12T21:21:08.422+01:00Free seeds or Free trade?In their urge to please the World Trade Organisation, major multinational corporations such as Monsanto and commodify everything (and anyone?) in the name of that holiest of holy, Free Trade, the Swedish government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, now wishes to impose even stricter regulation on so called "free seeds". The explicit aim, other than simply adopting policies decided in the EU, is to promote agricultural biodiversity by making it easier to sell seeds to "hobby farmers" within the European Union. It's interesting to note that the way to make things easier for "regular people" generally means "getting more restrictions", whereas to make things easier for "corporations" generally means "removing restrictions".<br /><a name='more'></a><br />It seems obvious that what is being promoted here is not, in fact, biodiversity but rather trade and profit-making. Of course, it might be argued that free trade and unfettered profit interests would lead to increased biodiversity according to some economic law, following from the internal logic of a free market. I have a couple problems with that assumption.<br /><br />In this scenario, biodiversity is not considered a goal in its own, it is simply a conditioned goal or a secondary side effect. It means that increasing (or at least not decreasing) biodiversity is worth striving for if, and only if, it can be shown to yield higher profit returns. It might be argued that this ensures increasing (or at least not decreasing) biodiversity, since it is a well-known fact that we do, in fact, need a high degree of biodiversity in order to sustain our (and other) life on Planet Earth. The problem is that biodiversity is, in fact, <em>decreasing</em> and at an alarming rate at that. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that corporate business practice focus only on short-term financial profit, ignoring the long-term negative effects.<br /><br />A representative of, say, the WTO would probably argue that this is because of regulations, and that an entirely free and unfettered market would solve this. Obviously that won't change the basic underlying premise though. This line of thinking is, primarily, profit-driven rather than need-driven. The idea being that if it is possible to make a profit of something, people as individuals will strive for it. It then follows logically that to satisfy our needs, we need to make those needs profitable.<br /><br />There is another principle at work here as well, that of people as intrinsically and fundamentally selfish. But people are not selfish by default, we learn to be selfish. By the same token, we can learn to act <em>unselfishly</em>. So why should we strive towards being selfish? The answer, most likely, is that it is a prerequisite for the profit-driven view. It is said that being unselfish doesn't work, and so long as we stay within a profit-driven view this might be true. However, there really is nothing to stop us from shifting to a need-driven view, and an unselfish view of people. Certainly, there will always be selfish individuals, just as there will always be unselfish individuals. The question is which of these do we hold up as an example? What values do we strive for, and what values do we base our financial and political systems on?<br /><br />Also, the idea of people as selfish and the profit-driven view are closely related to the idea of the individual as the primary unit. In this view, society is simply a collection of individuals, tied together around a (figurative or literal) contract, meant to protect private ownership. Often this ownership follows from the idea that we own our own bodies (and to be fair, this idea can be found in both liberal and socialist views). But the idea of ownership is a cultural convention, one which isn't even found within all human societies. This means that the idea of ownership is a <em>product</em> of human societies, therefore it follows that it cannot be an <em>underlying principle</em> of human societies. Following Hegel, I would also argue that it is impossible to separate the individual from society, neither is primary but rather they are each others prerequisites.<br /><br />A paradoxical consequence of focusing on (selfish) individuals and (private) ownership, is the oppression of the many at the hands of the few. We see this in todays neoliberal hegemony, and we saw it in the communist dictatorships of yesterday. It follows from the premises and the internal logic of either system - what we get is an ackumulation of wealth at the top, be it in the hands of corporations like Monsanto or the elite within the Communist Party. This is why, to go back to where I started, a supposedly liberal and individualistic doctrine of "free trade" result in more restrictions on "regular people" and fewer restrictions on "corporations".<br /><br />I would like to address the original question of promoting biodiversity as well. The answer is not to further commodify nature - that's what got us into this mess in the first place. The answer is to shift from profit-driven exploitative economic principles of domination, to need-driven sustainable ecological principles of partnership. We need to strictly regulate corporations such as Monsanto, not the small-scale eco-farmers.Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-37317642812255694932010-11-10T15:56:00.008+01:002010-11-10T20:39:21.061+01:00SMP - Coda (2010)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvpSf28FepB8BU97alNAxQjdvjPtDR7q01rAmZWIaTyX0EiAXDvWwmUmOdJhiIw5oYWvIjmIaykebcLXS6FAHX0UIE7Lfuv4UPTFZcOhESZ_MTt85fX7-HHJNw1kSIjgZv9v20s-dKXwZk/s1600/coda.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5538007622226335058" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvpSf28FepB8BU97alNAxQjdvjPtDR7q01rAmZWIaTyX0EiAXDvWwmUmOdJhiIw5oYWvIjmIaykebcLXS6FAHX0UIE7Lfuv4UPTFZcOhESZ_MTt85fX7-HHJNw1kSIjgZv9v20s-dKXwZk/s200/coda.jpg" /></a>A veritable "jack in the box", Jason Bazinet has worked with industrial giants like <strong>Chemlab</strong>, <strong>16volt</strong> and <strong>Front Line Assembly</strong> as a drummer - most recently on the 2010 Midi Ghetto Tour in the US and Canada and FLA's (mostly) European 2010 tour. Even going so far as to do three drum-gigs a night for most of the Midi Ghetto Tour (16volt and Chemlab, and also filling in for <strong>Left Spine Down</strong>). In addition, he's involved to greater and lesser degrees with <strong>64K</strong>, <strong>Monicom</strong>, <strong>The Crills</strong> as well as the elusive and enigmatic <strong>Loyal Opposition</strong>. It would be easy to forget he's also founder, only constant and currently sole member of <strong>SMP</strong> (<strong>Sounds of Mass Production</strong>) - the coldwave/industrial rock-rap crossover hybrid of a monster. Formed in the early 90's, SMP debuted with <em>Stalemate</em> on the (in-)famous Re-Constriction in 1995 and has since gone on to release four more full-length albums, two remix albums, one mixtape and too many collaborations and remixes to count. Needless to say, the news of a new album in the works got me all kinds of excited - especially since Bazinet announced that 2008's remix album <em>Pissing on the Legacy</em> would be the end of SMP.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Coda is short, sweet and to the fucking point (much like this review won't be). Clocking in at just over 35 minutes and bringing 8 tracks, including one remix ("Stay Sick (64K Mix)") and one cover (<strong>Circle Jerks</strong>' "Paid Vacation") Bazinet most certainly doesn't disappoint. The sound is unmistakably SMP - a mix of coldwave, industrial rock, punk and rap - in a sense picking up where 2007's <em>The Treatment</em> left off while at the same time pushing forward, further honing the sound as has been the case ever since Stalemate. While some might think the combination of industrial rock/coldwave and rap is odd, I beg to differ. You need only look to the Re-Constriction compilation <em>Operation Beatbox</em> for an example of how well the styles work together. Without any indepth musical knowledge, I'd say it's something to do with the beat/rhythm oriented sound.<br /><div></div><br /><div>Anyways, the album kicks off with "Stay Sick", a track previously featured on the compilation <em>Electronic Saviors: Industrial Music to Cure Cancer</em> (not sure if it's the same version), a groovy monster which really sums up what SMP is all about in my opinion. Bazinet's delivery bordering between punk and rap, over a heavy beat, a crunchy guitar-riff, scratches and samples. Lyrically it deals with (over-)medication and consumerism ("just eat your crap and take your medicine, and by all means, stay sick...") which goes well with the, slightly and rightly paranoid, social-commentary found on other SMP tracks. (As an a-side, I am reminded of <strong>Cyanotic</strong>'s <em>The Medication Generation</em>, review forth-coming.)</div><div></div><br /><div>"Run" is a collaboration with <strong>Penal Colony</strong>'s Dee Madden, <strong>Stromkern</strong>'s Ned Kirby and <strong>Stiff Valentine</strong>'s Chris DeMarcus. It kicks off with a menacing guitar (courtesy of DeMarcus) turning into a paranoid and pissed off rant against society, with Bazinet, Madden and Kirby taking turns spitting venom over a seriously heavy beat. This could possibly be the most hiphop influenced track, and at the moment contender for my favorite. Addictive as hell, with a chorus that'll have you instantly hooked and drawn in.</div><div></div><br /><div>"The Knife" kinda reminds me of "This Perfect Day", opening track on <em>Crimes of the Future</em> (video available on YouTube). There's something about the beat and mood here which just screams "cyberpunk", a kind of gritty street-feel with neon lights reflected on rainy streets. Also got a somewhat "oriental" sounding melody weaving in and out of it, which is a first for SMP.</div><div></div><br /><div>"Anna's Song" is built around a thick, driving beat with great use of programming and a whirring sound which has me thinking "androids" or something (maybe as a consequence of the title and lyrics, I'm reminded of GLaDOS from Portal, or Rachel from Blade Runner). Adding to this is what sounds like a subtle processing of Bazinet's vocals, the focused, almost restrained, production and a sporadic piano line.</div><div></div><br /><div>"Corporate Lunch" continues a tradition from The Treatment and Crimes of the Future ("Corporate Freak" and "Corporate Culture" respectively). While the basic beat is quite similiar to "Anna's Song", this one is a bit more hard-hitting with scratching and a more down-tuned feel.</div><div></div><br /><div>We then get the cover of Circle Jerks' "Paid Vacation". Haven't heard the original, but this is a short (1:40) energetic, skate punk song which translates very well to the SMP sound (much like previous SMP covers "Bloodstains", "I'm Tired of Life" from Crimes of the Future and "Who is Who" from The Treatment).</div><div></div><br /><div>Moving on, we've got "No Space". Starting out quite mellow, it builds up and gains momentum, only to slow down again, alternating through out. This might be the song with the most programmed or processed feel to it, lots of sounds going on. Reminds me a bit of "Die For You" from The Treatment, if I'm to make comparisons. It's SMP gravitating more towards coldwave than rap.</div><div></div><br /><div>Finally there's "Stay Sick (64K Mix)" sheds the guitars of the "Album Mix", going for a more stripped-down, electronic sound adding an almost claustrophobic feeling, with creeping synths and a "heartbeat" beat around half-way through. Great song to end the album on.</div><div></div><br /><div>I need to mention the overall production and mixing as well, handled by Wade Alin (of <strong>Christ Analogue</strong>, <strong>The Atomica Project</strong> and <strong>Scanalyzer</strong> as well as production for a host of industrial - and other - artists). Alin has achieved a very dynamic, thick and "distinct" sound - especially on "Run" and "Anna's Song" - managing to give the album both a polished and gritty feel at the same time. No mean feat.</div><div></div><br /><div>Overall, this is a great disc. Obviously a must-have for any fan of SMP but also of coldwave/industrial rock fans who aren't afraid to venture into punk/rap territory. My only complaint would be that it's a bit short, but on the other hand that means a) no filler, and b) you can just put it on repeat. The consistency of the tracks, the addictive hooks and Bazinet's great use of programming will keep you coming back for more.</div><div></div><br /><div>If you haven't already, I suggest you order your copy from <a href="http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/smp7">CD Baby</a> now. While waiting for the disc to arrive, be sure to check out <a href="http://www.smphq.com/">SMP HQ</a> for some great (free!) downloads.</div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-21871127305035212912010-11-02T14:10:00.006+01:002010-11-10T15:55:57.851+01:00Mortiis - Perfectly Defect (2010)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBmiihaZVeVsWKOMqegPugw_PLLykqYhwulCNY_7-BTtOzp14rqaz7VntqJ5AAOJhl72_kBW_HHEouuYUkaqK8w_TL8OWTdCofEmukTayDsldvuSb63V9cG6FViOkrajhL9uMq14Mh8in_/s1600/Mortiis+-+Perfectly+Defect+-+cover.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5534967733360913634" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBmiihaZVeVsWKOMqegPugw_PLLykqYhwulCNY_7-BTtOzp14rqaz7VntqJ5AAOJhl72_kBW_HHEouuYUkaqK8w_TL8OWTdCofEmukTayDsldvuSb63V9cG6FViOkrajhL9uMq14Mh8in_/s200/Mortiis+-+Perfectly+Defect+-+cover.jpg" /></a> With his roots as bass player in the black metal band <strong>Emperor</strong>, <a href="http://www.mortiis.com/">Mortiis</a> has come a long way over the years. From the first instrumental ambient/darkwave solo albums (as well as side projects <strong>Vond</strong> and <strong>Fata Morgana</strong>), to the synth pop/electro-industrial styling of 2001's <em>The Smell of Rain</em> (which saw Mortiis picking up the mic for the first time) and the harsher industrial rock of 2004's <em>The Grudge</em> (by which time "Mortiis" had turned into a full-blown band, rather than being the solo outfit of Håvard Ellefsen). It's now been three years since the release of <em>Some Kind of Heroin</em>, the remix version of The Grudge. During those years Mortiis (as a band) have been touring, working on new material and Mortiis (the frontman, Håvard) has shed the last parts of the mask he'd been wearing since way back in the day. In part as a gift to the fans, and (I suppose) in part as a teaser for the next full CD (<em>The Great Deceiver</em>, slated for an early 2011 release) Mortiis has released <em>Perfectly Defect</em> online.<br /><div><a name='more'></a></div><!-- more --><br /><div>Released as a <a href="http://downloadmusic.mortiis.com/">free download</a> (including full cover art), Perfectly Defect is described as a prelude, or bridge from The Grudge to The Great Deceiver. According to Mortiis the music on Perfectly Defect is work done during the sessions for The Great Deceiver, but which was too experimental and varied to be included on that album. Having listened to Perfectly Defect, as well as having heard some sneak material from The Great Deceiver, I'm inclined to agree. (Check out The Ugly Truth and Zeitgeist on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/mortiismortiis">Mortiis' YouTube channel</a>, in particular The Ugly Truth have a strong <strong>Ministry</strong>-vibe to it.)</div><div></div><br /><div>Perfectly Defect consist of 8 tracks with a running time just shy of 41 minutes. Four tracks feature vocals ("Closer to the End", "Perfectly Defect", "Sensation of Guilt" and "This Absolution") and four are instrumentals ("Sole Defeat", "Thieving Bastards", "Halo of Arms" and "Impossible to Believe"). The overall sound I think is closer to The Smell of Rain than The Grudge, in particular the first three songs - and especially "Sensation of Guilt" (which is also my favourite track on here, with its brooding, dusty atmosphere and what sounds almost like steel guitar?).</div><div></div><br /><div>While it's not as aggressive as the The Grudge, it does have a similarily dirty sound and even though it comes off as more electro-industrial than industrial rock, the first couple of songs are pretty guitar driven. The instrumentals (as well as closing "This Absolution") recall <strong>Front Line Assembly</strong> when they're at their dirtiest, and there's quite a bit of drum & bass rhythms thrown in, which I really dig (even though it seems to be very much in vogue among industrial/electro-industrial acts at the moment, but hey, I don't mind). This is most evident on the aptly titled "Thieving Bastards" which sound not at all unlike <strong>The Prodigy</strong> and <strong>Chemical Brothers</strong> around '97.</div><div></div><br /><div>It might be easy to disregard this as "just" a teaser for the upcoming "proper" album, especially since it was released for free and without any prior notice, but I think that would be a mistake. This is a great album, one which very much stands on its own. To my ears a fresh mix of electro-industrial/industrial rock with a lot of harsh electronica thrown in, sounding very much like Mortiis while still managing to evolve the sound further.</div><div></div><br /><div>I absolutely loved The Smell of Rain when I first heard it, but I wasn't entirely floored by The Grudge when it came out, it was a bit too noisy and "punky" (it's grown a lot on me since though), and I was somewhat disappointed when I saw them live at the Wave Gotik Treffen in Leipzig in 2005. After having heard Perfectly Defect I'm very, very psyched about The Great Deceiver though.</div>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-84817423565792877002010-10-30T19:47:00.004+02:002010-10-30T21:38:43.278+02:00Better for whom?It is a commonly held misconception that we need to pursue further advances within the field of genetically modified crops and livestock in order to come to terms with the problem of feeding an ever growing human population. Beside the obvious - we have no idea what the effects of these genetically modified organisms are on the local and global ecosystems - this argument fails to acknowledge the real problem, which is one of distribution of resources and, consequently, power.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Let me first state that the idea that we lack the resources to feed a growing human population is flat out wrong. World hunger is not caused by a global shortage of food. The problem is not that we do not have enough food, it is that the food is produced in and for the wealthy (and increasingly obese) "Western" market. There is an overproduction of dairy products as well as of meat. A lot of fertile soil is used to grow crops used for biomass, in a misguided attempt to create "eco friendly fuel" for "eco friendly cars", while the only "eco friendly" car is the car that is never built. Much like how the only "eco friendly" kilowatt hour is the one that is never produced. We need to cut back on our use and dependence of cars, as well as our rampantly escalating energy consumption.<br /><br />But getting back to the genetically modified crops and livestock. Monsanto, one of the major actors in this field, produce a kind of genetically modified crop which is resistant to a particular brand of pesticide - unsurprisingly one which they themselves manufacture. The idea is that this allows for cost-effective intense farming, but what it results in tends to be "monoculture farming" (basically the farming of a single crop) which depletes the soil and severely hurts the local ecosystem. It also serves to kill off small-scale farming, since the initial investment is generally too high for those farmers, meaning a concentration of ownership of the fertile soil in the hands of a few wealthy farmers - or more commonly farming corporations.<br /><br />Another example is that of the "golden rice", a genetically modified rice crop which was meant to address the vitamin A deficiency among primarily poor nations in Africa and South East Asia. While the thought behind this might have been good - vitamin A deficiency leads to blindness or vision impairment - there are severe ecological risks involved. For instance, we do not know what effect the higher levels of beta-carotene in this rice has on other organisms. There is another, more immediate objection to this "golden rice" however: the majority of people suffering from vitamin A deficiency are poor people, who cannot afford these GM crops in the first place, and who would benefit a lot more from an improved economic situation - something they might get through, for instance, development of local and sustainable small-scale agriculture.<br /><br />Finally, there is the case of the "recombinant bovine growth hormone" used to stimulate milk production in cows. This is what was behind the outbreak of "mad cow disease" in the 90's, and it came about, basically, because someone thought it was a good idea to increase the milk production while we had a massive dairy product surplus. Of course, if we do not consider what we produce, or why, but rather focus on maximizing production itself - this is where we end up.<br /><br />There are so many things wrong with the way we approach genetically modified crops and livestock, that I don't really know where to begin. I think the biggest issue I have is the one mentioned inititally - this does not address the fundamental problem: there is <em>no global shortage of food</em>. This means that we do not need to produce <em>more</em> food, we need to distribute it more evenly. But our current global economic system is not aimed at distributing resources equally - it is aimed at concentrating resources and ownership in as few hands as possible.<br /><br />Also, this approach in fact only serves to maintain a status quo with regards to an equal distribution and more equal economy, as for instance the "golden rice" removes incentives to alleviate the poor economic situation of the people in need. If given the choice between improving their economic situation - which can only be done at the expense of those richer - or giving them vitamin A infused rice, I don't think the people with money will need to think twice. Especially since the "golden rice" is an income revenue in itself.<br /><br />Genetically modified organisms only serve as an alibi to allow us to continue our business-as-usual approach, maintaining our unequal distribution of resources as well as a lifestyle which is fundamentally unsustainable.<br /><br />At the heart of it, I suppose this is an issue related to that ever increasing economic growth called "progress". As long as our economy is fuelled by the twin engine of production-consumption I see no long-term winners. We are eating ourselves to death here, both individually and collectively, as our consumption is quickly escalating out of control.<br /><br />Genetically modified organisms are supposed to make the world a better place, but better for whom? For the malnourished children of Cambodia, or for the rich executives of Monsanto? Because with the current state of affairs, there cannot be both.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">All of the examples here are taken from </span><a href="http://www.fritjofcapra.net/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Fritjof Capra</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">'s excellent and highly recommended book "Hidden Connections".</span>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-77309399446230057072010-10-29T19:45:00.003+02:002010-10-29T22:13:37.329+02:00Optimize rather than maximizeBy now it should be obvious to most that our current way of life is deeply and fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. We desperately need to change our policies and guiding principles if we as a species are to have a future on this planet. I believe a big part of the problem lies in the way we view the world and our place in it - rather than considering it a collection of discrete objects to be claimed in the name of private ownership, we ought to consider the world as the interconnected web of life that it is.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />"Ecological Debt Day" or "Overshoot Day", the day when we have consumed more resources than the Earth can produce in a year, comes earlier for each year. Man-made environmental disasters such as the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf earlier this year or the on-going oil spill in the Niger Delta now on its 50th year, are getting more common. The same is true for "natural" environmental disasters exacerbated by human exploitation such as the flooding of New Orleans or Bangladesh. While many large corporations are making ever increasing profits, a growing amount of people are getting ever poorer. In their strive for maximized profits, companies like Monsanto backed up by national governments, are turning more and more of our common resources into commodities to be sold and traded even going so far as to patent life itself.<br /><br />At the heart of these issues lies the notion mentioned above, of the world and everything in it as something to be claimed and owned. This is closely related to the prevailing paradigm of domination, exploitation and manipulation. Also, the idea of the world as consisting of discrete objects with no regard for how everything fits together and is part of a greater whole, which makes us insensitve to the delicate balance of the Earth's ecosystems and the essential role they play in bringing forth and sustaining all life.<br /><br />One of the major problems can be found in the way most companies focus blindly on maximizing share-holder stock value, regarding any other values as secondary or instrumental to that. I would like to point out that the main issue isn't companies themselves, or even that they are profit driven in the sense that they make money for their share-holders. It is that their sole purpose is maximizing profits rather than simply making money. This comes as a result of considering both natural resources and companies themselves as isolated units, to be price-tagged, sold and traded. It is the idea that if every single actor (being an isolated unit) maximize his or her profit, everyone will gain from it. This idea is flawed in that it presupposes the possibility of ever increasing, unlimited growth in a world of limited resources, and also in that it plainly disregards the complex and interconnected fabric of the ecosystems.<br /><br />Instead of attempting to maximize production at every single node of the various ecosystems that constitute the world, we ought to optimize the productive capacities of those ecosystems. Doing so entails learning from nature, shifting from a paradigm of domination, exploitation and manipulation to one of partnership, cooperation and emulation. For instance, rather than thinking of eco-design as "manipulating" nature we ought to think of it as "emulating" nature. It doesn't mean that we cannot make profits, but it does mean that we need to stop thinking of the world as consisting of isolated units and start thinking of it as an interconnected whole, as a web of life.<br /><br />I would like to point anyone interested in this issues to two highly interesting organizations. <a href="http://www.zeri.org/">ZERI</a>, or the Zero Emissions Research & Initiatives, is a global network trying to find novel ways of organizing "production clusters" which work along eco-design principles in an attempt to eliminate waste products, instead using waste as a resource in itself. <a href="http://www.ecoliteracy.org/">The Center for Ecoliteracy</a> is a public foundation aimed at promoting "schooling for sustainability" and "incorporating ecological principles and sustainability into school curricula".Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-63206798144860177422010-10-29T16:30:00.005+02:002010-11-10T15:53:04.931+01:00Society Burning - Internal Combustion (2010)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZXgnVOrwo-TBnR41JWX04Ymg5GNNMZI1p-Ou08Tw0siI4jIg8fF3pS6vrKAWzJnFlC6foe4j861hNrurS8AccwKcmkESB_j8CwFBkBWB27Ac5OnrUhT-kkhIvp39mnaI1fFpXdLml4PUs/s1600/ic_cover_08.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5533478098626035186" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZXgnVOrwo-TBnR41JWX04Ymg5GNNMZI1p-Ou08Tw0siI4jIg8fF3pS6vrKAWzJnFlC6foe4j861hNrurS8AccwKcmkESB_j8CwFBkBWB27Ac5OnrUhT-kkhIvp39mnaI1fFpXdLml4PUs/s200/ic_cover_08.jpg" /></a> What better way to get started than with a review of <strong>Society Burning</strong>'s <em>Internal Combustion</em>? The first new album of theirs in 13 years - not counting the 2009 releases of <em>State.of.Decay</em>, originally set for release in 1994, or the remastered and expanded <em>Entropy.Lingua.Reloaded</em> - sees the welcome return of Boom, Dave and Twitch. Formed as <strong>The Watchmen</strong> back in 1991 (hey Dave, still waiting for those Watchmen tapes man), settling for Society Burning a year or so later, these guys put out some of the defining coldwave/synth rock music of the 90's alongside other legendary acts such as <strong>Hate Dept.</strong>, <strong>Chemlab</strong> and <strong>16volt</strong>. Always with a heavy cyberpunk vibe both musically and lyrically. Their latest album picks up where 1997's <em>Tactiq</em> left of, bringing their music into the 21st century without losing anything of what made them so great in the first place.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Describing the sound here, without referencing earlier Society Burning albums is difficult. While they might have drawn somewhat on the sound of say <strong>Front Line Assembly</strong> and <strong>Skinny Puppy</strong> early on, Society Burning quickly took a path of their own fusing the electro-industrial of those bands with a kind of punk vibe. I dare say that the sound of Society Burning is unique, while still firmly placed in the style found among the 90's Re-Constriction bands, even though they don't really sound like those bands. If that makes sense? If anything, I would trace them back to the 'forementioned FLA and 'Puppies rather than to the <strong>NIN</strong>-brand of industrial.<br /><br />Moving on to <em>Internal Combustion</em>. The album kicks off with a short intro leading into the beat-driven heavy groove of "Nausea Ad Nauseam", a stomper of a track which would get any dancefloor moving had there been any justice in the world. Next up is "Honestly, I'm Lying (Lie)", which has this lazy, almost trip hop like vibe apart from the chorus with its guitars and smatter of drums.<br /><br />Next up we've got two instrumentals, "Double Plus Minus" and "Inflatable Buddha", surrounding and latching on to the slowly chugging rocker "Detritus" with lyrics aimed towards our consumerist, anti-ecological society ("If we rob from the future, we can keep living in the past/Investing in something, that was never meant to last"). Both instrumentals have this really cyberpunk feeling (can't really explain it any other way) with lots of glitches and effects. While they stand on their own, especially "Inflatable Buddha", I prefer to think of all three as one whole.<br /><br />"Internal Combustion no. 2" (no. 1 being the intro) is one of my absolute favourites here, together with "Internal Combustion no. 3" with which it shares its fantastic chorus. There's a slowed down drum and bass (breakcore?) feel to the rhythm here. This one's followed by the instrumental "D1sinT3gRat10n", featuring a similar sligtly sped up rhythm and added guitars. Next comes "The Monster Under Your Bed", a huge industrial rocker which is probably the closest in sound to what was found on Tactiq. Crushing, highly distorted guitars and an oppressive mood. After another short instrumental ("Splinter Cellphone") comes "Living in the Shadow of Myself", keeping with the breakcore mood and more of an industrial rock vibe to the chorus.<br /><br />"Very Small Openings in the Skin" is a very ambient, glitchy instrumental which much like the other instrumentasl does a lot for the general cyberpunk atmosphere of the whole album. The following "Exile" competes with "Nausea ad Nauseam" as the funkiest track on here, according to Dave an attempt at writing a "pop" song. There's almost a kind of 80's new wave feel to it, only with a lot more edge in part due to the distorted guitars I guess. If all "pop" sounded like this, I'd be a happy camper. One more glitchy instrumental ("Vapor Lock") leads us to the final "proper" track of the album - "Internal Combustion no. 3". As mentioned above, this one shares its chorus with "Internal Combustion no. 2" but does away with the drum and bass/breakcore in favour of a more coldwave/synth rock feel, getting into glitch territory towards the end.<br /><br />Rounding things off, there are two well-done remixes. <strong>PRODUKT</strong> strips "Nausea ad Nauseam" down a bit, emphasising the melancholy feel of it (kicking in with some buzzing guitars towards the end though) and <strong>UCNX</strong> adds some more menace and aggression to "The Monster Under Your Bed".<br /><br />All in all, this is a fantastic album and essential for any fans of industrial rock, synth rock, coldwave or whatever you want to call it. It's slightly more polished than Tactiq, and somewhat less aggressive - but still very much sounds like Society Burning and no one else. It's also obvious that both audio technology as well as the skills of everyone involved have progressed since 1997. There's an infusion of electronica, drum and bass or breakcore, which I suppose might in part be traced to Boom (check out <a href="http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/BoomchrPaige">his solo stuff</a> over at CD Baby, as well as the previous <a href="http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/SocietyBurning">Society Burning albums</a>). Cannot praise this album enough and I urge everyone to hurry on over to <a href="http://www.societyburning.com/">societyburning.com</a> to get a copy of the limited run of 300, while stocks last!<br /><br />Was it worth the 13 year wait? Most definitely. Just don't make me wait another 13 years now, ok?Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-21329026432932038532010-10-29T13:08:00.001+02:002010-10-29T13:08:47.034+02:00Re:load and re:aimIt's been well over a month since the Swedish general elections (and also since my last post here), and <a href="http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2189952/shell-bjod-pa-resan">corporate</a> <a href="http://sverigesradio.se/cgi-bin/international/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?nyheter=1&programid=2054&artikel=4133920">greed</a> continues unabated with the "victory" of the right-wing alliance over the red-green coalition. The elections also saw a racist nationalist party enter parliament. We're set for four more years of dismantling of what remains of our solidarity and social welfare, four more years of policy aimed towards making the rich richer, at the expense of those most in need of help and support.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />While I will continue to write a bit about politics, with the election campaigns over I have decided to shift and broaden my subject matter here - giving more space to my incoherent ramblings about philosophy, ethics, complexity and what not, as well as the occasional album reviews and music related news (with an emphasis on industrial music).<br /><br />The more astute of you will have noticed I've also gone back to writing in English. This is simply because I do not wish to exclude my extensive international following from partaking in all the interesting and captivating things I have to say.<br /><br />So yeah.Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-58768031112892392602010-09-11T21:52:00.004+02:002010-09-12T09:47:27.168+02:00SkattesänkarlinjenGöran Hådén har skrivit ett bra - och hoppingivande - <a href="http://hallplatshaden.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/rodgrona-vande-samma-lage-i-norge">inlägg</a> om hur de rödgröna i Norge lyckades vända ett underläge på fem procentenheter nyligen, samt påpekar också att 1,2 miljoner väljare kan tänka sig att byta block. I en av kommentarerna till inlägget, skriver "Daniel" att Alliansens skattesänkningar leder till "riktiga" jobb, till skillnad från de "fejk-jobb" som skulle genereras av satsningar på den offentliga välfärden. Vidare menar han att Miljöpartiet enbart för en nationell miljöpolitik, och att det är helt meningslöst eftersom miljöproblemen är globala. Jag skrev en svarskommentar som jag tänkte återge här (uppdaterat med delar från ett följdsvar):<br /><a name='more'></a><br />1. Skattesänkningarna ökar företagens vinstmarginaler, genom att de håller nere löneutvecklingen. Det är sant att det här <em>kan</em> leda till fler jobb, men det är så beroende av rörliga variabler att det inte är tal om något linjärt, kausalt samband.<br /><br />Att konsumtionen ökar med lägre skatt är inte heller det självklart. De extra hundralappar som blir över i plånboken kan gå till ökad varukonsumtion, ökad tjänstekonsumtion eller ökat sparande. Ökad varukonsumtion är (generellt sett) inte bra ur en miljösynpunkt. Ökad tjänstekonsumtion <em>kan</em> vara miljöneutral, beroende på tjänster - man kan tänka sig att det exempelvis leder till ökad konsumtion av privata (men ändock till största delen skattefinansierad) "offentliga" tjänster. Ökat sparande vore klokt, eftersom den sänkta skattesatsen slår mot de gemensamma socialförsäkringarna, vilket ställer krav på större sparkaptial om något oförutsett (arbetslöshet, sjukdom etc) inträffar.<br /><br />De som verkligen gynnas av skattesänkningar och avregleringar (vilket är den andra delen av regeringens nyliberala linje) är givetvis företag, företrädesvis större sådana. De jobb som skapas är inte "säkra" jobb - utan snarare osäkra låglönejobb. Visst, om man ser till människor som en statistisk massa ser det ut som om arbetslösheten går ner, men ser man till vilka <em>faktiska</em> personer som har ett <em>faktiskt</em> jobb ser det dystrare ut. Det må vara "riktiga" jobb, men de är kortsiktiga, lågavlönade och osäkra. Anledningen är att politiken inte bara tar hänsyn till en "ekonomisk verklighet", den förstärker dessutom den inneboende logiken och rationaliteten i en global kapitalism, där produktivitet inte längre är direkt kopplat till vinst. Politiken får samma mål som den globala kapitalismen - att öka aktievärdet, på bekostnad av alla andra värden (t.ex. sociala och ekologiska).<br /><br />2. Att påstå att en nationell politik är värdelös eftersom miljöpåverkan är global är bara korkat. Att påstå att Miljöpartiet dessutom enbart för en nationell miljöpolitik är lika korkat och felaktigt det med.<br /><br />Givetvis behöver miljöpolitiken vara global i sitt omfång, men det innebär inte att man kan bortse från nationell miljöpolitik. Det "korkade" är att mena att eftersom miljöfrågorna är globala, kan vi strunta i vilka gifter vi pumpar ut i närmiljön, vilka kemikalier vi sätter i oss, hur vi utformar vår energipolitik, hur vi behandlar våra djur o.s.v. Allt detta spelar givetvis roll, oavsett om vi kan påverka den internationella politiken eller inte. Precis som påpekats har vi alla möjligheter att fungera som ett föregångsland för andra.<br /><br />Men ännu viktigare är att vår politik behöver anpassas efter den ekologiska verkligheten - i ännu högre grad än den ekonomiska. Vi kan inte bedriva nationell miljöpolitik separat från den globala. Om vi inte på allvar bryter vårt oljeberoende, kommer vi stå fruktansvärt illa rustade när oljepriset oundvikligen skjuter i höjden. Detsamma gäller kärnkraften. Att bara avveckla den rakt av är inte något som förespråkas av någon idag. Det som behövs är att vi minskar vår energiförbrukning i kombination med att vi bygger ut hållbara energiformer. Att behålla kärnkraften - och vår extremt höga energiförbrukning - är helt enkelt inte ett alternativ.<br /><br />Att påverka den globala miljöpolitiken är naturligtvis ytterst angeläget, liksom det är att inse att miljöfrågor är globala. Men det är inte detsamma som att enbart före en global miljöpolitik.<br /><br />Ett av Alliansens största problem är att de för en politik helt och hållet utifrån ekonomiska teorier baserade på en "global kapitalism". Till skillnad från "klassisk kapitalism" - som bygger på en marknadslogik ("tillgång och efterfrågan"), bygger den "globala kapitalismen" enbart på maximering av vinst, i form av maximerad avkastning för aktieägare. Det här innebär att alla sociala och ekologiska hänsyn försvinner, till förmån för enbart ekonomiska hänsyn.<br /><br />Därmed inte sagt att politiken inte bör ta hänsyn till de ekonomiska förutsättningarna, men att låta dessa utgöra grunden för politik är att sätta ekonomin - och i förlängningen "maximerad avkastning för aktieägare" - i förarsätet. Allting utvärderas utifrån huruvida det är gynnsamt för aktiekursen, i den naiva tron att om vi bara kan generera en hiskelig massa pengar åt ett fåtal kommer dessas rikedom sippra ner i resten av samhället och komma alla till del. Alldeles bortsett de katastrofala sociala och ekologiska konsekvenserna av detta, fungerar det inte. Det har visats med all önskvärd tydlighet av hur det gått i USA och Storbritannien efter Reagan och Thatcher, och deras "trickle-down theory".Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-30930227216389743152010-09-10T10:48:00.005+02:002010-09-10T13:57:24.468+02:00Alla dessa opinionsundersökningarRoade mig lite med att kika på den senaste opinionsundersökningen från Synovate. Det ser naturligtvis inte jättekul ut för de av oss som inte vill ha fyra år till av ökade klyftor, nedskärningar i välfärdssystemen, huvudlös avreglering, obefintlig miljöpolitik och total avsaknad av globala rättviseperspektiv. Men frågan är om det egentligen är så nattsvart som borgerlig media vill få det till.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Synovate har genomfört telefonintervjuer med 1519 personer. Man säger att alliansen har stöd av 50,5% och de rödgröna av 42,2%. Tittar man lite närmre upptäcker man att det dessutom är 17,1% som är osäkra.<br /><br />Det intressanta är ju att de 17,1% som är osäkra inte har räknats in när man talar om stöd för respektive block. Det innebär att av 1519 personer är 17,1% osäkra, det vill säga 260 personer. Dessa har man i undersökningen betraktat som blankröster, och alltså helt enkelt räknat bort från helheten. Kvar blir då 1259 personer. Det är alltså av dessa som 50,5% uppger att de tänker rösta på alliansen (636 personer) och 42,2% som uppger att de tänker rösta rödgrönt (531 personer). Kvar har vi 7,3%, eller 92 personer, som röstar på något annat (det uppges att SD har runt 6%, vilket lämnar 1,3% åt F! och PP).<br /><br />Skillnaden på 8,3 procentenheter mellan blocken är alltså i själva verket endast 105 personer, vilket bör ställas mot det faktum att hela 260 personer uppger att de är osäkra.<br /><br />Frågan jag ställer mig är varför man väljer att vinkla rapporteringen som man gör, och det enda svaret jag kan tänka mig är att det ingår i alliansens valpropaganda. Det ligger givetvis i regeringens intresse att måla upp en bild av sig själva som större, och åtnjutande större stöd för sin politik, än de är eller har. Det blir särskilt aktuellt i en valrörelse som denna, som handlar i så stor utsträckning om isolerade sakfrågor, som dessutom sällan har särskilt stor direkt inverkan på den egna situationen.<br /><br />Det där sista kanske låter konstigt, så jag ska utveckla resonemanget lite. Den största andelen av Sveriges befolkning består av en välmående "medelklass". Det är inte i första hand de här personerna som farit illa under de senaste fyra åren. Jag såg för ett tag sedan siffror som sa att runt 65% upplevde att deras ekonomi förbättrats under mandatperioden. Det är i sig inte särskilt uppseendeväckande, för trots att vi haft en enorm internationell lågkonjunktur höjs vår levnadsstandard (åtminstone den snävt "materialistiska") stadigt år för år. Det beror förstås på flera saker, dels på rent samhällsekonomiska faktorer men också på teknisk utveckling som inte berörs direkt av politiska och ekonomiska beslut. En annan sak att ha i åtanke är också att vi här talar om en <em>upplevd</em> förbättring av privatekonomin, och med tanke på hur ofta vi får höra att vi har det bättre vore det konstigt om vi inte också <em>upplevde</em> det så.<br /><br />Men vad hände då med de 35% som <em>inte</em> upplevde en förbättring av sin ekonomi? Tittar man på hur regeringens fördelningspolitik är det tydligt att de rikaste har gynnats och de fattigaste missgynnats. Att därifrån sluta sig till att vi bland dessa 35% finner de fattiga och mer utsatta grupperna är inte särskilt långsökt. Det är just dessa 35% som berörts direkt av de försämringar och nedskärningar som gjorts, men då vi lever i ett både ekonomiskt och etniskt segregerat samhälle kommer den absoluta majoriteten av de gynnade 65 procenten sällan eller aldrig i kontakt med de missgynnade 35 procenten.<br /><br />Nu är det ju, rent krasst, så att ett regeringsalternativ inte behöver mer än runt 50% av rösterna (och egentligen inte ens det) för att vinna valet. Men eftersom vi människor, oavsett vad man hävdar från alliansens sida, har ett visst mått av solidaritet räcker det inte att bara säga till dessa 65% att de fått det bättre och att de därför ska rösta på sittande regering. Även om regeringen inte tycks bry sig om de 35% som fått det sämre, så finns det många i den mer välbeställda gruppen som gör det.<br /><br />Det blir då viktigt att visa att man faktiskt har stort stöd för sin politik, eftersom det ger viss legitimitet åt en politik som de facto missgynnar de mest utsatta. Man kan förmedla bilden av låginkomsttagaren som faktiskt inte tycker det är ett problem att hans eller hennes (oftast hennes) levnadsstandard har försämrats - något som går i linje med den "trickle-down theory" i nyliberal anda som förts under mandatperioden. Att den inte fungerar - något som visats i en stor mängd forskning - spelar mindre roll, så länge man kan få människor att tro att den fungerar, och även få människor att tro att <em>andra</em> tror att den fungerar.<br /><br />Och hur får man människor att tro att <em>andra</em> tycker något? Jo, man publicerar en mängd opinionsundersökningar och ser till att vinkla dem så mycket det bara går. Dessutom aktar man sig noga för att visa "verkligheten", eller snarare de 35 procentens verklighet. När det rapporteras från utsatta områden handlar det nästan uteslutande antingen om att visa upp "det andra" eller om att visa upp de individer som lyckats <em>trots</em> sin socio-ekonomiska bakgrund. Att de 35 procentens verklighet också är vår verklighet, att de 35 procenten inte är en isolerad grupp som finns någonstans i Rosengård, Rinkeby, Alby eller Hammarkullen - det är inte något som lyfts fram, ens i granskande reportage med stort socialt patos.<br /><br />Så sitter vi där hemma vid köksbordet, undrar hur det ser ut där ute och ögnar snabbt igenom nästa opinionsundersökning.Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-45379541791967883712010-09-08T19:26:00.005+02:002010-09-08T21:02:20.095+02:00De isolerade sakfrågornas gisselDet har inte skrivit så mycket här på sistone, något som beror på flera orsaker. Dels har jag haft mindre tid över på grund av att jag återupptagit mina studier, men en kanske ännu större anledning är att jag börjat tröttna lite på debatten i valrörelsen. Det här valet tycks till stor del handla om mer eller mindre isolerade sakfrågor, med en närmast total avsaknad av större övergripande ideologiska perspektiv.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Att det har blivit så beror säkerligen på flera faktorer. Den politiska debatten anpassas efter medierna, och handlar mer om korta, snärtiga svar på snabba frågor. Alla dessa valkompasser och enkäter på nätet ger intrycket av att valet handlar om att ta ställning till en uppsjö sinsemellan oberoende sakfrågor. Det här sker på bekostnad av djupare diskussioner och genuin samhällskritik.<br /><br />Det är inte bara tråkigt, det är också ett reellt politiskt problem. Enfrågepartier som Moderaterna och Sverigedemokraterna gynnas onekligen av en sådan utveckling. Moderaterna driver sin idé om skattesänkningar som en universallösning, och Sverigedemokraterna driver på motsvarande sätt sin idé om ett totalstopp för invandring som en universallösning. Deras förenklade världsuppfattningar understöds av idén om politiken som en uppsättning sakfrågor, där större sammanhang och relationer glöms bort eller osynliggörs.<br /><br />Men politik handlar inte bara om dessa enskilda sakfrågor, även om de också kan vara viktiga. Politik handlar om att se, möta och hantera de problem och situationer vi ställs inför - och eftersom vi aldrig på förhand kan veta exakt vilka problem och situationer som kan tänkas dyka upp, kan vi inte heller veta vilka sakfrågor som kommer vara viktiga och relevanta imorgon. Likaså handlar politik om avvägningar mellan alla dessa sakfrågor, och om hur vår lösningar på ett problem har effekter på ett annat problem. Men inte heller här ger en ensidig diskussion kring de enskilda, och isolerade, sakfrågorna någon större vägledning. Det intressanta borde vara den övergripande synen, den grundläggande hållningen och om man så vill den "ideologiska kompassen".<br /><br />I en kort <a href="http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/natkompasser-enkatsvar-ger-endimensionell-bild-av-politiken-1.1164736">ledare</a> i lördagens DN, skriver Johannes Åman om alla dessa valkompasser och enkäter. Mot slutet konstaterar han att de viktigaste skillnaderna mellan socialdemokrater och vänsterpartister inte fångas "i några samlingar av sakpolitiska enkätsvar". Istället menar han att dessa skillnader ligger i deras "skilda hållningar till politik som kollektivt beslutsfattande" och hur "Socialdemokraterna har en tradition av ansvarstagande och kompromisser" samtidigt som vänsterpartisterna är "mer ideologiskt renläriga - och världsfrånvända". Den spänningen, säger han till sist, "finns nu inbyggd i den rödgröna alliansen".<br /><br />Åman har både rätt och fel i det han skriver. Det riktigt intressanta är att han vänder sig mot alla dessa sakfrågor och menar att de inte ger en rättvisande bild av politiken, och i nästa mening menar att ett parti som tar de större sammanhangen på allvar är "världsfrånvänt". Spänningen som han säger finns inbyggd i det rödgröna samarbetet är ju i själva verket något bra, och något som uppenbarligen saknas inom Alliansen. Där tycks man istället vara väldigt eniga i sin beskrivning av verkligheten som bestående av enkla beståndsdelar - sakfrågor - med enkla och tydliga svar. Det är kanske lätt att uppfatta det som att vara världstillvänd, men i själva verket handlar det om att bara se till ytan.<br /><br />Men vad Åman är ute efter är troligtvis att skrämmas med kommunistspöket, om än något inlindat. Där är han helt fel ute. Både Socialdemokraterna och vi i Miljöpartiet har en tydlig ideologisk grund och ett kritiskt förhållningssätt till samhället. Må så vara att Socialdemokraterna under Persson tonade ner samhällskritiken avsevärt, till förmån för en mer nyliberal hållning, men traditionellt och historiskt finns den där. Den skulle däremot må bra av att uppdateras något. Att Miljöpartiets politik är i grunden samhällskritisk är inte någon hemlighet. Problemet är att det inte riktigt förts fram och synliggjorts i årets valrörelse - just eftersom den kommit att handla så mycket om de där isolerade sakfrågorna.<br /><br />Avsaknaden av samhällskritiska perspektiv i valrörelsen är ett gissel, och anledningen till att jag själv börjar tröttna lite. Frågan är om det inte också kan kosta oss rödgröna en, för Sverige och även i förlängningen omvärlden och miljön, välbehövlig valseger.Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-78603960584117351062010-08-23T20:59:00.002+02:002010-08-23T21:24:05.852+02:00Får det vara lite heroin?I lördags <a href="http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/i-dag-tar-jordens-resurser-slut-1.1157138">överskred</a> vi <a href="http://www.sydsvenskan.se/sverige/article1207972/Jordens-resurser-slut-idag.html">budgeten</a>. Då hade vi, sedan första januari, förbrukat så mycket resurser som Jorden klarar av att generera på ett år. Förra året skedde det den 25:e september, i år alltså en månad tidigare. Lite drygt en vecka tidigare deklarerade Reinfeldt att man vill minska de ekonomiska klyftorna i Sverige <a href="http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/valet2010/article7619665.ab">genom att sänka skatten för höginkomsttagarna</a>. Ska vi ta och titta lite närmre på det här?<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Att skattesänkningar riktade specifikt till höginkomsttagare skulle <em>minska</em> de ekonomiska klyftorna är precis så befängt som det verkar. Däremot brukar det sägas att skattesänkningar riktade till höginkomsttagare också gynnar låginkomsttagare.<br /><br />Tanken att låginkomsttagare gynnas av skattesänkningar, även om dessa i första hand tillfaller höginkomsttagare, tycks bygga på två antaganden. Dels menar man att även om vissa (höginkomsttagare) får <em>större</em> skattesänkningar än andra (låginkomsttagare) så innebär ju detta att alla trots allt får skattesänkningar, och därigenom mer pengar över. Dessutom, sägs det, kommer <em>dynamiska effekter</em> medföra att den ökade rikedomen som höginkomsttagarna får, även kommer låginkomsttagarna till godo.<br /><br />I det första fallet stämmer möjligtvis antagandet om man ser till absoluta, istället för relativa, tal. Om person A får 100kr mer i plånboken och person B får 150kr mer i plånboken, så har ju båda bevisligen fått mer pengar i plånboken. Å andra sidan säger det här ingenting om eventuellt ökade utgifter för t.ex. sjukvård, förskola o.s.v., vilket visar på vikten av en helhetssyn och inte bara ett snävt skattefokus. Ser vi istället till relativa tal blir det uppenbart att person A missgynnas på person Bs bekostnad. Det är här de <em>dynamiska effekterna</em> kommer in.<br /><br />Med lägre skatt frigörs pengar för konsumtion samtidigt som företagens lönekostnader går ner. Efterfrågan på varor går upp och med den går även efterfrågan på personal upp. Tillsammans leder det här till ökad tillväxt, fler jobb och större rikedom. Marika Lindgren Åsbrink på <a href="http://storstad.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/vad-sager-nobelpristagare-om-hogre-skattesankningar-for-de-rika/">Storstad</a> gör en föredömlig genomgång av varför det här inte fungerar - sammanfattat och väldigt förenklat kan man säga att <em>dynamiska effekter</em> handlar mer om önsketänkande än någon form av objektiv sanning.<br /><br />Anledningen till det är enkel. Hela teorin bygger på antaganden om mänskligt beteende. Men mänskligt beteende är komplext - icke-linjärt - och bygger på <em>sannolikhet</em> snarare än strikta, kausala, orsakssamband. Det är visserligen <em>möjligt</em> att de <em>dynamiska effekterna</em> blir de som t.ex. Anders Borg hoppas på, men det är också <em>möjligt</em> att de inte blir det. Om han satsade sina egna pengar skulle jag inte ha några problem med det, men nu är det hela Sveriges ekonomi som ligger på bordet.<br /><br />Men det finns ett större problem här. Teorin fungerar i praktiken som ett gigantiskt pyramidspel där toppen drar med sig hela pyramiden uppåt. Hela resonemanget bygger på en evig ekonomisk tillväxt, och evig ekonomisk tillväxt bygger på oändliga resurser. Samma resurser som tog slut i lördags.<br /><br />Att använda evig ekonomisk tillväxt som motor i ett konsumtionssamhälle innebär inte bara att vi skjuter långt över målet för ekologisk hållbarhet, det är dessutom ungefär lika rationellt som att skjuta heroin för att hantera en ångestfull vardag. Det kanske får oss att leva i paradiset på kort sikt, men på lång sikt dödar det oss garanterat.<br /><br />Så. Får det vara lite heroin?<br /><br /><a href="http://jakoblundgren.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/vi-lever-over-vara-tillgangar/">Jakob Lundgren</a>, <a href="http://kuniri.se/gott-nytt-ar">Jesper Räf</a> och <a href="http://hallplatshaden.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/tank-om-arets-budget-tagit-slut-redan-idag/">Göran Hådén</a> skriver även de om denna "Overshoot Day".<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Gröna östgötar:</strong> </span><a href="http://evakarlsson.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/20/jordens-resurser-tar-slut-pa-lordag-den-21-augusti/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Eva Karlsson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> och </span><a href="http://moderniserasverige.blogspot.com/2010/08/budgeten-for-jorden-sprack-igar.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Mattias Stenberg</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver båda om dagen då resurserna tar slut. </span><a href="http://friederikegerlach.blogspot.com/2010/08/blod-pa-sveriges-tillvaxt.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Friederike Gerlach</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om den oförsvarliga svenska vapenexporten. </span><a href="http://www.nt.se/bloggar/bloggentry.aspx?blogg=2418015&entry=6223547"><span style="font-size:85%;">Stefan Arrelid</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om Ostlänken. </span><a href="http://halsanargron.blogspot.com/2010/08/kultur-sloseri-med-skattepengar.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Margareta Fransson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> ifrågasätter Timbros </span><a href="http://www.dn.se/debatt/landstingens-kulturprojekt-slukar-miljarder-varje-ar-1.1157213"><span style="font-size:85%;">debattutspel</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> om att kultur är slöseri med landstingsmedel. </span><a href="http://blog.pylad.se/index.php/2010/08/19/folkpartiet-nationalisterna/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Charles Pylad</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om folkpartiets tragiska utveckling från socialliberala till nationalistiska.<br /><br /><strong>Andra lästips</strong>: Nannan Lundin utvecklar varför </span><a href="http://nannan.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/19/ar-%e2%80%9dforetagarlinje%e2%80%9d-egentligen-bara-en-%e2%80%9dskattelinje%e2%80%9d-eller-%e2%80%9ddrommarlinje%e2%80%9d/"><span style="font-size:85%;">företagspolitik handlar om mer än bara skatter</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. På Kuniri kan man läsa om varför </span><a href="http://kuniri.se/arbetslinjen-ar-i-grunden-farlig"><span style="font-size:85%;">"arbetslinjen" är i grunden farlig</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">.</span>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-79218708960349802602010-08-18T22:00:00.004+02:002010-08-18T22:38:48.449+02:00Det finns ingen "miljöetik""Miljöetik" finns inte. Det låter kanske märkligt, särskilt när det kommer från en miljöpartist. Men miljöfrågorna är inte etiska frågor annat än i den mest triviala betydelsen. Etik handlar om att göra val, avvägningar och prioriteringar utifrån en uppfattning om "det goda". En etisk teori ger svar på frågan "hur bör jag agera i den här situationen?". Miljöfrågor handlar inte om hur vi <em>bör</em> agera i en given situation, utan om hur vi <em>kan</em> agera. De ger oss inget utrymme att välja. Vår miljö är inte något vi kan ha en uppfattning om, den är förutsättningen för våra uppfattningar.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Ett exempel på en etisk fråga skulle kunna vara:<br /><br /><blockquote>Är det rätt av Sven-Otto Littorin att ta emot ett avgångsvederlag på 112 000 kronor i månaden, i upp till ett år?<br /></blockquote><br />Hur vi svarar på frågan beror på vår <em>uppfattning</em> om vad som är rätt och fel, rättvist eller orättvist. "Är det rätt" kan här bytas ut mot "bör". Värt att notera är att det <em>inte</em> är samma fråga som:<br /><br /><blockquote>Får Sven-Otto Littorin ta emot ett avgångsvederlag på 112 000 kronor i månaden, i upp till ett år?<br /></blockquote><br />Den här frågan beror inte på vår uppfattning om vad som är rätt och fel. Istället handlar den om vad som är rent praktiskt möjligt, i det här fallet vad som är tillåtet enligt lag. Det här är alltså <em>inte</em> en etisk fråga, utan en rent empirisk fråga. Däremot kan vi ställa den etiska frågan om det är rätt att vi har en lag, som tillåter Sven-Otto Littorin att ta emot ett avgångsvederlag på 112 000 kronor i månaden, i upp till ett år. Finner vi att en sådan lag är orätt, oetisk, så står det oss naturligtvis fritt att ändra lagen så att den stämmer bättre överens med vår etiska uppfattning.<br /><br />Ett annat exempel på en fråga som <em>inte</em> är etisk, är:<br /><br /><blockquote>Kan människor gå på vatten, utan tekniska hjälpmedel?<br /></blockquote><br />Svaret är till viss del beroende av vår verklighetsuppfattning. Tror vi att vi lever i en serietidningsvärld befolkad av superhjältar kanske svaret är "ja". Men för de av oss som inte tror att vi lever i en serietidningsvärld befolkad av superhjälter torde svaret vara ett otvetydigt "nej". Frågan handlar om vad som är rent praktiskt möjligt, i det här fallet vad som är tillåtet enligt naturlagarna.<br /><br />När vi försöker gå på vattnet, och obönhörligen sjunker som stenar, gör vi inte detta <em>på grund av</em> en "naturlag". Vi sjunker, väldigt förenklat, eftersom vår densitet är högre än vattnets. Det finns inget syfte bakom vår oförmåga att gå på vattnet, och det är ingen som har bestämt att vi inte ska kunna gå på vattnet. Den aktuella "naturlagen" beskriver helt enkelt vad som sker.<br /><br />"Naturlagarna" är egentligen ett tokigt ord. Det antyder att det finns vissa lagar under vilka naturen lyder, vilket i sin tur skulle kunna antyda att det finns någon - eller <em>något</em> - som stiftat dessa lagar. En del människor tror att denna någon - eller detta <em>något</em> - är Gud, och av dessa människor är det ganska många som tror att de kan förmå denne Gud att ändra på lagar som de inte tycker om. Problemet är att det som vi i dagligt tal benämner "naturlagarna" i själva verket inte är lagar alls, åtminstone inte i juridisk mening. De är istället våra egna beskrivningar, utifrån de observationer vi gör, av vad som sker i naturen. Det beklagliga med "naturlagarna" är inte att vi inte kan ändra dem när vi tycker de är dålig, utan snarare att begreppet får oss att tro att vi <em>kan</em> ändra dem.<br /><br />Etiska frågor innebär att vi som etiska agenter ställs inför ett <em>meningsfullt val</em>. Sven-Otto ställs inför ett sådant när det gäller möjligheten att ta emot ett avgångsvederlag på 112 000 kronor i månaden, i upp till ett år. Han kan välja att ta emot pengarna, och han kan välja att inte ta emot pengarna. Ett meningsfullt val har flera komponenter.<br /><br />Valet måste ske utan tvång, vad som i dagligt tal kallas "av fri vilja". Om någon håller en pistol mot huvudet på mig, och säger att den skjuter mig om jag inte ger den vad den vill ha - då kan jag inte sägas göra ett meningsfullt val. Ett annat, mindre drastiskt exempel, är om jag tillåts att välja vilka kläder jag har på mig, men inte tillåts delta i skolundervisning ifall jag väljer att bära slöja.<br /><br />Valet måste vara realistiskt. Om jag får välja mellan att gå på vatten (utan hjälpmedel eller Gudomligt ingripande) eller förlora jobbet, kan jag knappast heller sägas göra ett meningsfullt val. Ett annat, mer vardagligt exempel vore om jag får välja mellan att förlora min rätt till sjukpenning eller skriva in mig på arbetsförmedlingen och därigenom ställer mig till arbetsmarknadens förfogande, vilket innebär att jag "friskförklarar" mig själv - och följdaktligen förlorar min rätt till sjukpenning.<br /><br />Valet måste stå mellan alla tillgängliga alternativ, det får alltså inte vara "riggat". Om jag får välja mellan att rädda en människa eller tio, samtidigt som det faktiskt skulle vara möjligt att rädda alla elva, kan jag inte heller sägas göra ett meningsfullt val. Ett annat, vanligare exempel är om jag får välja mellan fullständigt förstatligande, eller fullständig privatisering när jag i själva verket även kan välja en blandning av de två.<br /><br />Etiska frågor utgår också från värderingar. Det här knyter an till vår ursprungliga fråga gällande Sven-Otto Littorins val att ta emot ett avgångsvederlag på 112 000 kronor i månaden, i upp till ett år. Vad jag anser vara "etiskt rätt" är beroende av vad jag värdesätter. Värdesätter jag individens oinskränkta rätt till självbestämmande högre än individens solidariska ansvar gentemot sina medmänniskor, då skulle jag troligtvis mena att Sven-Otto agerar etiskt riktigt när han tar emot pengarna.<br /><br />Vad vi värdesätter, vad som är <em>värdefullt</em>, är högst subjektivt och formas av en mängd faktorer. Till viss del "ärver" vi värderingar från våra föräldrar, under vår uppväxttid. Vi tar till oss värderingar av de vi umgås med. Vi "lär" oss samhällets värderingar genom de myter och berättelser som upprepas och förs vidare, via böcker, tidningar, filmer, tv och så vidare. Vi värdesätter givetvis saker utifrån deras upplevda nytta för oss. Hela tiden utgår vi ifrån vår upplevelse av världen. Även om det finns likheter mellan individers värderingar - vi lever trots allt alla på samma planet (även om man kan undra över en del) - så skiljer sig värderingar ändå i ganska hög grad mellan individer, över tid och mellan kulturer.<br /><br />(En intressant aspekt är att människor som vuxit upp under ungefär samma förhållanden, kan ha väldigt skilda värderingar. Troligtvis hänger det ihop med den komplexa samverkan mellan de olika faktorer som formar vad vi värdesätter.)<br /><br />När vi pratar om "miljöetik" får vi det att verka som om miljöfrågor är ett område bland många andra. Även om vi givetvis behöver ta hänsyn till dem, ska de också vägas mot andra områden - såsom ekonomiska och politiska intressen. Det stämmer inte. Miljöfrågor handlar inte om etiska val, avvägningar och prioriteringar.<br /><br />Frågor som rör miljön besvaras inte utifrån vår <em>uppfattning</em> om vad som är <em>rätt och fel</em>, utan utifrån vad som är <em>praktiskt möjligt</em> givet den verklighet som naturlagarna är en återspegling av. Den verkligheten är inte förhandlingsbar. Förbränning av den sista droppen fossila bränslen, framställning av enorma och onödigt stora mängder kött, utsläpp av kemikalier vilkas långsiktiga effekter vi inte har en aning om - huruvida allt detta är skadligt för miljön är en empirisk fråga. Om det visar sig vara skadligt för miljön, vilket mycket pekar på att det är, kan vi inte ändra på miljön så att de inte är skadliga för den längre. Istället måste vi ändra på de ekonomiska och politiska system som ger upphov till dessa skador. Till skillnad från "naturlagarna" är de lagar som styr ekonomin och politiken skapade av människan, och både kan och <em>bör</em> ändras så att de stämmer överrens med vad som är praktiskt möjligt.<br /><br />Frågor som rör miljön ger oss inte några <em>meningsfulla val</em>. Vi kan inte välja att bevara de ekologiska systemens balans. Liv är en egenskap hos dessa ekologiska system, och inte en egenskap hos individuella organismer. Utan de ekologiska systemen finns inget liv. Utan liv finns inga människor. Utan människor finns inga etiska agenter. Och utan etiska agenter finns det ingen som kan göra meningsfulla val.<br /><br />Trots detta formulerar vi gärna miljöfrågor i termer av etiska frågor.<br /><br />Miljöhänsyn ställs mot den "fria marknaden", och frågan om vi ska producera miljövänliga varor är upp till den enskilda konsumenten. Det här är inget fritt val.<br /><br />Miljöhänsyn ställs mot dagens ekonomiska system, baserat på konsumtion och idén om evig tillväxt. Det här är inget realistiskt val.<br /><br />Miljöhänsyn ställs mot bekämpning av fattigdom och svält, när vi också bör ta med till exempel vapenindustrin i ekvationen. Det här är inte ett val mellan alla tillgängliga alternativ.<br /><br />Frågor som rör miljön handlar inte om vad vi, som individer eller i grupp, <em>värdesätter</em> rent subjektivt. Självklart kan miljön vara <em>värdefull</em> på samma sätt som andra saker, och värdet vi sätter på miljön beror av samma faktorer som påverkar allt annat vi värdesätter. Miljön har dessutom ett väldigt stort nyttovärde. Men viktigare är att miljön utgör själva <em>förutsättningen för värde</em>.<br /><br />Miljöfrågor är inte etiska frågor, och miljöintresset är inte ett intresse bland många andra. Vad som däremot är en etisk fråga är <em>hur</em> vi behandlar miljöfrågorna. En politik som <em>inte</em> placerar miljöfrågorna främst är oetisk, och har vi en regeringen som för en sådan politik står det oss naturligtvis fritt att byta ut en sådan regering.<br /><br />Mitt förslag är att vi gör det den 19:e september. Om det är ett etiskt val eller inte låter jag vara osagt.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Gröna östgötar:</strong> </span><a href="http://www.nt.se/bloggar/bloggentry.aspx?blogg=2418015&entry=6208700"><span style="font-size:85%;">Stefan Arrelid</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> konstaterar, mycket korrekt, att en röst på miljöpartiet är en röst på just - miljöpartiet. </span><a href="http://moderniserasverige.blogspot.com/2010/08/klimatet-inte-viktigast-for-mp.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Mattias Stenberg</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> konstaterar att klimatfrågan är den viktigaste frågan för oss alla, trots </span><a href="http://www.dn.se/nyheter/valet2010/klimatet-viktigast-for-mp-1.1155000"><span style="font-size:85%;">DNs antydan</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> att den "bara" är viktigast för miljöpartiet. </span><a href="http://halsanargron.blogspot.com/2010/08/budskapets-baksida.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Margareta Fransson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> förundras över alliansens retorik och märkliga syn på valfrihet. </span><a href="http://evakarlsson.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/16/dagens-ekonomi-ar-ett-hot-mot-bade-manniskor-och-natur/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Eva Karlsson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> konstaterar att dagens ekonomi är ett hot mot både människor och natur. </span><a href="http://friederikegerlach.blogspot.com/2010/08/sabuni-skammer-ut-sverige-igen.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Friederike Gerlach</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skäms, liksom jag, över </span><a href="http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/sabuni-integration-genom-lagre-lon_5144925.svd"><span style="font-size:85%;">Nyamko</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><a href="http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/foraldraledighet-kan-dras-in_5145151.svd"><span style="font-size:85%;">Sabunis</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><a href="http://www.dn.se/nyheter/valet2010/sabuni-kortad-ledighet-och-lag-lon-1.1154837"><span style="font-size:85%;">galenskaper</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. </span><a href="http://blog.pylad.se/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Charles Pylads</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> blogg genererar för tillfället ett internt serverfel - kanske för att han vågade hävda att det inte går att stänga ner internet?<br /><br /><strong>Andra lästips</strong>: Jesper borta på Kuniri är ordentligt i farten och skriver riktigt läsvärt om </span><a href="http://kuniri.se/ledighetslinjen"><span style="font-size:85%;">ledighetslinjen</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, </span><a href="http://kuniri.se/centerns-harry-potter-politik"><span style="font-size:85%;">bemöter kritik mot miljöpartiet</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> och har ändå tid att gästblogga hos Hådén om </span><a href="http://hallplatshaden.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/svart-soka-asyl-lagligt/"><span style="font-size:85%;">asylpolitik</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. Jakob Lundgren skriver om en <a href="http://jakoblundgren.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/miljon-i-fokus/">miljöpolitik i fokus</a></span>.Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-85402142469090006452010-08-16T19:14:00.005+02:002010-08-16T21:00:07.228+02:00Vad har högern emot kollektivtrafiken?<a href="http://brihed.blogspot.com/2010/08/rut-flyttar-till-tunnelbanan-byter-kon.html">Precis</a> <a href="http://perankersjo.blogspot.com/2010/08/landstingsbutler-istallet-for-rut.html">som</a> <a href="http://beijbom.blogspot.com/2010/08/rut-en-butler-james-och-admiral-von.html">i</a> <a href="http://peaceloveandcapitalism.blogspot.com/2010/08/butlers-i-tunnelbanan-har-de-blivit.html">stort</a> <a href="http://minamoderatakarameller.blogspot.com/2010/08/butler-eller-piga-i-tunnelbanan-vilken.html">sett</a> <a href="http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2010/08/ropen-skalla-butler-at-alla.html">alla</a> <a href="http://tokmoderaten.blogspot.com/2010/08/nar-kollektivtrafiken-kommer-lukta.html">borgerliga</a> <a href="http://anniejohansson.se/2010/08/16/politiska-butlers-ar-dagens-klasskampsord/">bloggare</a>, hickade jag till när jag hörde talas om <a href="http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/valet2010/article7623038.ab">Carin Jämtin och Ilijan Batljans</a> <a href="http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/valet2010/article7624748.ab">förslag</a> om <a href="http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/s-vill-ha-tunnelbanebutler_5139595.svd">butler</a> i <a href="http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/val2010/1.2097904/s-vill-ha-butler-pa-tunnelbanan">tunnelbanan</a>. Sedan tog jag mig tid och läste faktiskt <a href="http://www.dn.se/debatt/nar-ska-vi-stockholmare-fa-tid-att-alska-och-skratta-1.1153624">förslaget</a>.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Det man vill är att ta vara på, och utnyttja, kollektivtrafiken bättre än vad som sker idag. Med tanke på att kollektivtrafiken idag är i stort sett densamma som när den introducerades är det på tiden. Så vad går förslaget ut på?<br /><br />Man ska kunna beställa mat på morgonen vid sin station, för att sedan hämta upp den färdiga matkassen vid spärren på kvällen. En enkel tidsbesparing, och knappast något som någon kan ha något emot.<br /><br />Man vill ha nya förskolor vid, eller i anslutning till, tunnelbanestationerna vilket kommer underlätta barnlämning och -hämtning. Ett väldigt bra förslag, som inte bara skulle underlätta vardagen för många småbarnsföräldrar, det skulle dessutom minska antalet kortare transporter.<br /><br />Man vill att det ska vara möjligt att lämna smutsig tvätt på station på morgonen för att sedan hämta upp den ren på väg hem på kvällen. Också en bra idé, det skulle dessutom vara energieffektivt då det skulle innebära färre "småkörningar" hemma. Däremot finns möjligheten redan idag, ett flertal tunnelbanestationer har redan kemtvättar.<br /><br />Bättre bredband i hela kollektivtrafiken. Det är väl en no-brainer om något. Kostnaden för att förbättra bredbandstillgången inom kollektivtrafiken borde inte vara särskilt hög.<br /><br />Fler, större och säkrare parkeringar vid stationerna. En fullkomlig självklarhet för att öka nyttjandet av kollektivtrafik och minska mängden trafik i innerstan.<br /><br />Och så den där butlern då. Vad det handlar om är ju egentligen bara en vidareutveckling av trafikvärden. Att man drar paralleller till RUT har väl egentligen bara med benämningen att göra, ja förutom att det är en väldigt billig poäng.<br /><br />En annan, något mer saklig kritik är om det här verkligen är ett område för <em>politik</em>. I fallet med tvätten är jag böjd att hålla med, även om miljöpartiets förslag om sänkt tjänstemoms är något som skulle gynna den typen av tjänster. Det har inte så mycket med SL att göra dock. Men de andra förslagen är ju i allra högsta grad lokalpolitik. SL är ett kommunalt bolag (än så länge) så alla policyförändringar där är ju politiska i någon mån. Och förskolor är ofta, men inte alltid, kommunala.<br /><br />Jag förstod först inte varför förslaget väckte så stor uppmärksamhet bland de borgerliga bloggarna. Tills jag kopplade ihop det med <a href="http://svt.se/2.128339/1.2107269/kollektivtrafik_viktigare_an_vagar?lid=share">Novus opinionsundersökning</a> som visar att svenskarna hellre ser satsningar på den lokala kollektivtrafiken än vägar, med ett särskilt stort stöd för kollektivtrafik i både Stockholm och Göteborg. Det måste kännas jobbigt för alliansen som till varje pris vill driva igenom Förbifart Stockholm.<br /><br />Överhuvudtaget tycks det som om de borgerliga har en genuin, grundmurad aversion mot kollektivtrafik och en närmast fanatisk tro på privatbilismen. Det är och tycks förbli en för mig outgrundlig gåta.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Gröna östgötar:</strong> </span><a href="http://evakarlsson.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/16/dagens-ekonomi-ar-ett-hot-mot-bade-manniskor-och-natur/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Eva Karlsson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om hur dagens ekonomi utgör ett hot mot både människor och natur. </span><a href="http://www.nt.se/bloggar/bloggentry.aspx?blogg=2418015&entry=6207331"><span style="font-size:85%;">Stefan Arrelid</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> pushar för MP Norrköpings eminenta valmanifest. <a href="http://moderniserasverige.blogspot.com/2010/08/skatterna-har-faktiskt-sankts.html">Mattias Stenberg</a> förklarar pedagogiskt varför inte alla tjänat på regeringens skattesänkningar.</span>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-13964734309402736262010-08-16T13:08:00.005+02:002010-08-16T16:31:12.724+02:00Hållbar arbetsmarknadspolitikAtt höstens val tycks handla om jobben är inget vågat påstående. Men frågan är inte om vi ska ha jobb eller bidrag, som alliansen vill göra gällande, utan om vilken typ av jobb vi vill se och hur vi tänker oss att de skapas. I grund och botten handlar det om synen på människan, samhället och det ekosystem som vi alla är en del av.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />En grundläggande fråga är varför vi jobbar överhuvudtaget. Även om det är sant att vi jobbar för att tjäna pengar och för att känna delaktighet, är det inte hela sanningen. Ytterst jobbar vi för att lösa problem. I det här sammanhanget är pengar givetvis inte oviktigt, men pengarna i sig är inte det primära. Att känna att man är delaktig i, och bidrar till någonting är också viktigt men ett arbete varken är eller bör vara den enda vägen dit.<br /><br />Regeringens arbetsmarknadspolitik tycks överhuvudtaget inte vara inriktad på problemlösning, på många sätt skapar den dessutom problem, ibland till och med medvetet. Jobbskatteavdraget ska göra det lönsamt att arbeta, men håller istället tillbaka löneutvecklingen samtidigt som det frigör pengar för konsumtion - ofta av varor med väldigt negativ klimatpåverkan. Jobbskatteavdragets baksida, nedskärningarna i trygghetssystemen, ska fungera som ytterligare incitament att börja arbeta, men resulterar endast i att antalet sökande till de få lediga jobb som finns ökar - ja, förutom att det dessutom raserar enskilda människors livssituation.<br /><br />RUT-avdraget är, näst efter jobbskatteavdraget, den arbetsmarknadsåtgärd som lyfts fram mest av regeringen. Grundtanken är inte så dum. Gör det billigare att köpa tjänster, och skapa arbetstillfällen åt företrädesvis lågutbildade kvinnor. Men i praktiken är det fortfarande bara de mer välbeställda som har råd med tjänsten, och istället för att fungera som en väg in på arbetsmarknaden riskerar det att låsa kvar dessa kvinnor i ett lågavlönat yrke.<br /><br />En välvillig tolkning av regeringens arbetsmarknadspolitik är att den istället för att lösa problem skapar nya, på grund av sitt enögda fokus på pengar. En annan tolkning är att den inte alls handlar om jobb, utan om att frigöra så mycket pengar som möjligt för att sedan koncentrera dessa pengar hos så få som möjligt. Med tanke på att moderaterna är tongivande i alliansen, och att deras politik uttryckligen bygger på marknadsekonomisk grund, är det en rimlig tolkning. Den marknadsekonomiska principen är ju trots allt att koncentrera så mycket resurser som möjligt hos så få individer som möjligt.<br /><br />En hållbar arbetsmarknadspolitik bygger på önskan att tjäna pengar och känna delaktighet, och syftar till att lösa problem.<br /><br /><ul><li>En generell sänkning av arbetsgivaravgiften istället för jobbskatteavdrag gör fortfarande att det blir billigare att anställa men håller inte på samma sätt tillbaka löneutvecklingen.</li><li>En helt slopad arbetsgivaravgift vid anställande av arbetslösa unga gynnar de arbetslösa, men undviker att fungera som direkt stöd åt t.ex. ett klimatfientligt McDonalds.</li><li>En generell sänkning av tjänstemomsen skapar nya arbetstillfällen och styr samtidigt om konsumtion från varor till tjänster. Det här är också något som även gynnar de företag som i sin tur är beroende av andra tjänsteföretag.</li><li>En storsatning på kollektivtrafik och infrastruktur erbjuder nya arbetstillfällen, både direkta och indirekta, samtidigt som det hjälper till att ställa om samhället i en mer miljövänlig riktning.</li><li>En satsning på utbildning och vidareutbildning säkerställer att vi har den arbetskraft vi behöver.</li></ul>En hållbar arbetsmarknadspolitik kommer ur en hållbar politik. Frågan om pengar, delaktighet och problemlösning kan överföras till ett mer generellt plan, och även om analogin inte är perfekt (de är sällan det) handlar den då om relationen mellan ekonomiska, politiska och ekologiska system.<br /><br />Ekonomiska och politiska system är skapade, med uttryckliga syften, av människan. Det ekonomiska systemet handlar grovt om hur vi hanterar och skapar resurser. Det politiska systemet handlar, lika grovt, om hur vi hanterar och skapar delaktighet. Dessa system styrs av en inneboende logik men det finns ingenting som hindrar oss från att ändra den logiken, systemets spelregler, om resultatet inte blir vad vi önskar. De utgör båda <em>rörliga variabler</em>.<br /><br />Till skillnad från ekonomiska och politiska system, är ekologiska system inte skapade. De saknar ett uttryckligt syfte. Däremot besitter ekologiska system en viktig egenskap - liv. Så även om alla systemen påverkar varandra, de är alla så kallade <em>öppna system</em>, utgör de ekologiska systemen själva fundamentet. Liksom de andra systemen följer även ekologiska system dessutom en inneboende logik, vilken vi upplever i form av <em>naturlagar</em>. Däremot har vi ingen möjlighet att ändra eller kringgå dessa spelregler om systemet inte beter sig som vi vill. Ekologiska system utgör <em>fasta variabler</em>.<br /><br />Ett långt och omständigt sätt att helt enkelt konstatera: Keep your priorities straight.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Gröna östgötar:</strong> </span><a href="http://www.nt.se/bloggar/bloggentry.aspx?blogg=2418015&entry=6203737"><span style="font-size:85%;">Stefan Arrelid</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> och </span><a href="http://blog.pylad.se/index.php/2010/08/14/lugnet-vid-glottern/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Charles Pylad</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om överraskande byggplaner vid Glottern. Charles skriver också om </span><a href="http://blog.pylad.se/index.php/2010/08/16/miljopartiet-ar-det-basta-foretagarpartiet/"><span style="font-size:85%;">miljöpartiets syn på företagande</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, om </span><a href="http://blog.pylad.se/index.php/2010/08/13/teflon-a-la-reinfeldt/"><span style="font-size:85%;">teflon a la Reinfeldt</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> och </span><a href="http://blog.pylad.se/index.php/2010/08/14/omojligt-stanga-ned-internet/"><span style="font-size:85%;">internet</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. </span><a href="http://halsanargron.blogspot.com/2010/08/dataprogram-fixar-bemanningen.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Margareta Fransson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om problemen kring sjuksköterskebemanning. </span><a href="http://cete.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/16/natur-eller-kulturkatastrofer/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Bengt Cete</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om skyfallen i Pakistan frågar sig om det är en natur- eller kulturkatastrof. </span><a href="http://evakarlsson.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/16/naturskyddsforeningen-har-granskat-regeringens-naturvardspolitik/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Eva Karlsson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om Naturskyddsföreningens genomgång av regeringens naturvårdspolitik. </span><a href="http://friederikegerlach.blogspot.com/2010/08/folkpartiet-har-gjort-det-igen.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Friederike Gerlach</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om FPs besynnerliga utbildningspolitik och </span><a href="http://friederikegerlach.blogspot.com/2010/08/saljer-mitt-namn-till-hogstbjudande.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">säljer även sitt namn till högstbjudande</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">.<br /><br /><strong>Andra lästips</strong>: Maria Ferm och Christian Valtersson skriver också de om </span><a href="http://st.nu/opinion/debatt/1.2246629-vi-lyssnar-pa-foretagarna-sjalva"><span style="font-size:85%;">rödgrön företagspolitikskriver</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, och Maria skriver dessutom om </span><a href="http://www.sourze.se/Tygliberalismen_imponerar_inte_10720452.asp"><span style="font-size:85%;">den föga imponerande tygliberalismen</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">.</span>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441349796457504432.post-24266439310076870792010-08-13T12:21:00.001+02:002010-08-13T17:59:44.818+02:00Gud är död, länge leve Gud?"Gud är död" proklamerar Zarathustra i Nietzsches verk <em>Sålunda talade Zarathustra</em>. Den stora tragedin är att vi försöker ta Guds plats som Herre över Världen.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Gud är inte bara själva idén om Världens skapare och herre, Gud är också idén om Det Andra. Det kommer som en naturlig följd av att Gud ska ha skapat världen - för att kunna vara världens skapare kan Gud inte samtidigt vara en del av världen. Av det följer också tanken att Meningen och Sanningen står att finna utanför, eller vid sidan av, världen. Världen får mening och värde från Gud, i egenskap av att vara Guds skapelse. Inbegripet i idén om Gud är också en hierarki, där Gud finns högst upp och resten av skapelsen följer i fallande ordning med människan - Guds ställföreträdande förvaltare av Världen - näst högst.<br /><br />Idén om Gud är naturligtvis uråldrig, och vi kan bara spekulera kring dess ursprung. Men <em>varför</em> idén om Gud uppstod hos oss människor är egentligen oviktigt, det viktiga är att <em>den uppstod hos oss</em>. Det vill säga, Gud är en mänsklig skapelse, men en skapelse som under årtusenden närmast fått ett eget liv och drivit så långt bort ifrån oss att vissa ser Gud som verklig. Och på sätt och vis har de väl rätt, på så sätt att Gud - eller idén om Gud - har haft stor inverkan på allas våra liv, direkt eller indirekt. Men, och det här är viktigt, Gud har ingen egen existens oberoende av oss människor, ingen egen vilja eller plan. Gud - idén om Gud - kan inte agera utan oss människor.<br /><br />I kölvattnet av Upplysningen och de enorma vetenskapliga landvinningarna växte människans självförtroende lavinartat, idén om Gud fick reell konkurrens och förpassades från sin tron. Gud dödförklarades visserligen inte av alla, men var inte heller längre odiskutabel Herre över Världen. Istället upphöjdes idén om Den Rationella Människan till Gud, och människan tog samtidigt klivet ut ur världen.<br /><br />Ingen etik utan religion, hörs ofta från religiöst håll med udden riktad mot humanisterna vilka hyllar människan som skapare av mening och värde. De har rätt i att en strikt humanism saknar etik, men det samma gäller även de flesta religioner. Etik handlar om att ta ansvaret och konsekvenserna för de val man gör, inte om att mekaniskt hänvisa till ett utifrån givet rättesnöre. Etik står att finna <em>i</em> världen, inte <em>utanför</em> den.<br /><br />Världen har tveklöst förändrats enormt sedan vi ersatte idén om Gud med idén om Den Rationella Människan. Men den har inte, tvärtemot vad som ofta hävdas, förändrats <em>i grunden</em>. Vi söker fortfarande mening och sanning utanför världen, idag i form av teoretiska modeller av världen. Världen får mening och värde med utgångspunkt i människan, som inte längre ses som en del av världen utan som dess Herre. Den gamla hierarkin kvarstår.<br /><br />Världen ses som Något Annat, från oss separat. Som något att tämja, kontrollera och dominera. Världen blir i våra ögon ett "ting" eller "objekt" för oss att manipulera utifrån ett snävt och begränsat egenintresse, när vi försöker placera oss själva utanför den och utanför det sammanhang vi existerar i och av.<br /><br />Visst har vi gjort vetenskapliga och teknologiska framsteg och höjt vår levnadsstandard avsevärt. Men vi har också allvarligt skadat de livsviktiga ekosystem som vi är en del av. Vi har utarmat naturresurser som ansamlats under tusentals, miljontals år på bara ett sekel. Vi har själva orsakat ohyggligt lidande. Vi har förslavat inte bara andra djur, utan även oss själva. Vi har orsakat naturkatastrofer i ofantlig skala.<br /><br />Problemet var inte, i första hand, fantasifiguren "Gud". Problemet var den fundamentala dualismen. Det är ingen ny insikt, spår av den finns i de flesta religiösa traditioner och det är en grundsten inom mystiken. Men gemensamt för de flesta av dessa är ett övergivande av världen och en strävan mot Gud, Det Andra. Vi må ha ersatt strävan mot Gud med strävan mot en idealiserad Människa, men riktningen är densamma.<br /><br />Och för varje dag driver vi längre och längre ifrån den värld som håller oss vid liv.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Gröna östgötar:</strong> </span><a href="http://halsanargron.blogspot.com/2010/08/manga-avstar-fran-lakemedel.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Margareta Fransson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> frågar sig om </span><a href="http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/var-tredje-person-kanner-oro-for-att-ta-medicin-1.1153128"><span style="font-size:85%;">Apotekets undersökning</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> syftar till att höja försäljningen eller förbättra för patienten. </span><a href="http://evakarlsson.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/12/okade-avgifter-for-miljons-skull-debattartikel-i-corren/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Eva Karlsson</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> utvecklar resonemanget kring koldioxid- och kilometerskatt. </span><a href="http://moderniserasverige.blogspot.com/2010/08/falsk-marknadsforing-i-politiken.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Mattias Stenberg</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> och </span><a href="http://friederikegerlach.blogspot.com/2010/08/kollektivforpackning-for-bilvanligt.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Friederike Gerlach</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver om Alliansens förmåga att kamoflera sin politik. </span><a href="http://cete.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/12/konkurrens-och-valfrihet-2/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Bengt Cete</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver roligt och vasst om konkurrens och valfrihet. </span><a href="http://blog.pylad.se/index.php/2010/08/12/djurrattsalliansens-fantastiska-arbete/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Charles Pylad</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> berömmer (med rätta) Djurrättsalliansen.<br /><br /><strong>Andra lästips:</strong> Jesper på </span><a href="http://kuniri.se/om-konsten-att-strimla-en-hund-levande"><span style="font-size:85%;">Kuniri</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> skriver ingående och filosofiskt resonerande om djurrätt. </span><a href="http://nannan.mpbloggar.se/2010/08/13/sveriges-framtida-konkurrenskraft-och-attraktionskraft-%e2%80%93-med-en-%e2%80%9drodgron%e2%80%9d-industripolitik/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Nannan Lundin</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> kommenterar och fördjupar föredömligt Peter Erikssons </span><a href="http://www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/1.424267-sverige-behover-en-ny-industripolitik"><span style="font-size:85%;">debattartikel</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> om behovet av ny industripolitik. </span><a href="http://schlaug.blogspot.com/2010/08/vi-kan-inte-vanta-framat-tillsammans.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Birger Schlaug</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> ger klarsynt perspektiv på </span><a href="http://www.svd.se/nyheter/politik/valet2010/m-siktar-in-sig-pa-s-valjare_5125309.svd"><span style="font-size:85%;">moderaternas</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> och </span><a href="http://www.svd.se/nyheter/politik/valet2010/mona-sahlin-kan-inte-vanta-langre_5125883.svd"><span style="font-size:85%;">socialdemokraternas</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> valkampanjer.</span>Mats Monsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17992729333636399350noreply@blogger.com0