Social terrorist policies practiced by Liberal economic regimes relying on market trends protecting elites have created misery and have solved nothing
The antithesis of anarchy is the existence of a State, recognized as a legal entity in return for services, its existence justified by allocation of resources to protect its citizens. In fact the State is bordered by an imaginary line drawn on a map which in turn defines the lot of the citizens born by chance inside that line. Its continuation is a matter of public acceptance, confidence and trust.
We have seen before what happens when there is a Revolution, when this trust is broken and the populus feels the need for a change, which very often replaces the Establishment with the sons of the Established and plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Even the imaginary line remains the same.
But inside the line, and it matters not where it is drawn, the scenario is practically the same. The system in force replaced the social model created by Marx, Engels and Lenin, among others, a model which produced free public services and which concentrated on development through sharing of knowledge in dozens of countries (literacy programs in countries ruled by western elites where the population was illiterate after three centuries of foreign rule, for instance). It worked. The system in force which replaced it does not deliver.
It does not allocate resources in a sustainable way and is unable to function without financing itself by borrowing money it does not create to pay for the services it buys and sells yet cannot deliver. It is called sovereign debt which revolves around borrowing cash from the financial markets and paying it back in instalments with variable interest rates. In most cases debt to GDP, the ratio between what a country owes and what it produces, is negative, meaning that countries owe and spend more than they earn.
The result of this casino-type economic management is what we see today. Hospitals stretched to breaking point, school accommodation dangerous to use, cut-backs on policing seeing crime rates soar and a growing feeling of insecurity taking hold of communities, students facing a financial nightmare coming out of their courses laden with debt, others who would like to go to University but cannot afford to go because the price of housing is based on the unregulated market approach. And so on.
Under this system, countries cannot afford to provide the services they offer. Let us take the following analogy: someone decides to open a posh restaurant and calls it The Fresh Lobster, only the restaurant is miles away from the sea and in a region which does not produce lobsters. It is in the middle of the Sahara Desert. You can imagine the end of the story.
So with an economic system which runs along tailing market economic trends, in which the allocation of services is deficient, in which the social vector of policy has been trimmed to breaking point (you feed a plant and water it, you don't prune it to the ground, stamp on it and poison the soil), in which public services are considered a luxury and a favor, it is no wonder that nothing works, although people have to pay more and more, for less and less in return.
It is also clear that with a complete inversion of the etarian pyramid, so fewer people paying into a creaking social system which cannot afford to exist per se, with people living longer and with healthcare costs spiraling, a new system, or an old one which proved itself valid, is a better alternative.
If it is not a crime to provide public services for free, it is also an idea to provide free housing, freeing people from the burden of a rent or a mortgage which holds them down and holds families back from the second they receive their salaries and for a substantial part of their adult lives, if not all of it. Another is to set up public/private mixed enterprises to manage the enormous quantity of unoccupied buildings in cities, mostly owned by the municipality, which could be used to house students, for example.
If the social model is not in vogue today, at least it provided public services for free, and more: it guaranteed free housing and full employment. The social terrorist model which replaced it has provided what, exactly?
Photo: In the time of harmony By Paul Signac - riha-journal, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42423822
*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. A Vegan, he is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights. He is Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru. He is an official translator, a coach, a consultant and a professor.
Join the most international forum on the Net
Turkey has found itself in a circle of countries subject to US and European sanctions. Are they dangerous for Ankara? What is Turkey going to do in response?