Interviews on a Sunday, part 2
Mysteriously didn't show on my f-list first time I posted this, so here goes again: This is the second of two sets of interview questions. I know I owe questions to a number of you; if you wish me to owe interview questions to you as well, say so in the comments.
From grahamsleight:
From grahamsleight:
- Which would you most like back in the BBC archives in its entirety - Evil of ( Read more... )
Again, stupid from whose point of view? From the point of view of those who have to live with the consequences, i.e. you and me and millions of other poor sods (can we say 'sods' on livejournal?) it's pretty damn stupid.
From the point of view of those who can fatten their capital off exploited immigrant labour, or those who can win elections by appealing to xenophobia and chauvinism, it makes perfect sense.
On the wider issue of conspiracy theories . . . one thing I hate about them is that their very existence undermines efforts to make the connections that are needed to understand the world around us, because people hear you making those connections and assume (wrongly) that you're just another looney tunes conspiracy theorist.
Example: People used to say to me 'hey moose, why don't you have a mobile phone'. I'd reply that I was boycotting the technology because the competition for the areas in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo where the mineral coltan (essential for mobiles) is mined is a major factor for aggravating the civil war in DRC where 3 million people have been killed.
As you know, this is a well documented feature of the DRC tragedy. However, I explained this to some people once, and they looked very puzzled for a moment, and then one of them said - 'oh, so you're one of those people who think the moon landing was a hoax, right?'
Reply
Yeah, but you have to choose between those two options! They are not compatible!
And winning elections is all very well, and an unavoidable motivator for politicians, but if it is consciously done at the cost (as I said earlier) of increased radicalism of the masses left outside, institutionalised corruption in the process of immigration, labour and skills shortages, it is a false priority; or, as I described it earlier, stupid.
On the DRC stuff, that really is extraordinary. Where do these people think the minerals come from? A hole in the ground? Cornwall?
Reply
Are they really that incompatible, though?
If the new immigrant labour force is kept in a socially and economically position as the result of xenophobic policies which ensure that their status is either semi-legal or illegal, then it will be much harder for them to exercise the rights of labour - trade union organisation, a minimum wage, health and safety conditions, etc.
In the long term there will be, as you say, costs to all that - but then as Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. And in a situation such as the UK, where the economy is geared towards short-term perspectives, it's highly likely those long-term costs will be ignored until it's too late.
Reply
Indeed - that's why I call it stupid!
Reply
I'm not denying it's stupid (from out point of view) am I?
I'm merely saying that, unfortunately, there are structural reasons which are breeding this particular kind of stupidity. It's not merely the result of an individual politicians lack of grey matter, it's a product of the structural condition of today's Western European societies.
I also have the feeling that we've started chasing each other's tails on this, so it may be best to stop here. . .
Reply
Leave a comment