a note on language

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I get really annoyed by having to frequently use different terminology to describe the same phenomenon. If you follow my ravings for more than a day or two you'll notice that I often throw around terms like plutocracy, corporatocracy, pseudo-democracy, etc. etc. When I use these terms I'm very aware that they suggest an inconsistency in my analysis and I just wanted to throw this post out to explain why I do so. The reason is to identify the precise dysfunction underlying whatever subject I'm ranting about at the time. I think its useful to put these terms out there so that people can think about them and, if they wish, to explore further what they mean. As far as consistency goes the precise term is somewhat irrelevant. The depth of  the dysfunction that afflicts modern Western society is sufficient to contain a plethora of malignancies that are exhibited in different ways, be it Liam Fox's use of parliamentary office space to accomodate the operation of the sham 'charity' and arch-neocon lobby group Atlantic Bridge or the transparent attempts by the coalition government to push privatisation against public opinion and any conceivable national interest. Each term is appropriate to the specific phenomena to which I apply them but they all imply some sort of fundamental dysfunction. You can use a specific term to accurately describe the sociopathy that is being exhibited or you can use a generic term for the entire phenomenon.

As an aside, "sociopathy" is another favourite of mine. I use it as an umbrella-term for the entire, sordid, shit-storm of dysfunction that is endemic throughout modern Western society.  Wikipedia fails to provide a relevant definition, providing only psycho-babble that equates the term with psychopathy. According to the word's etymological roots, however, "sociopathy" is a pathology of society. I.E. It is some intrinsic aspect of society that is diseased. The intrinsic component of this definition is important because it is far too easy to subconsciously externalise behaviour and actions which are sociopathic. To categorise them as being alien to society, something new and different which isn't part of 'our society'. However, pretty much every sociopathy is not at all new but merely a development of some earlier human dysfunction that modernity has provided with a new way to manifest itself. Its really easy to draw historical parallels between serdom and modern wage-slavery, for example. Other examples are even more obvious: the resort to nationalism and jingo to exhort citizens to accept and embrace their own oppression is a beautiful one and a fundamental component of Tory ideology. The common theme running through all of these sociopathies is that they are human failings. They arise from humanity collectively misplacing trust or being insufficiently focused upon (sometimes purposefully distracted from) the workings of its own society to perceive the dysfunction lurking there. 

The problem with all these big words and my precise definitions is that they might alienate your average reader. Basically, they're radical jargon. The purpose of this post is to admit this and to confess to the crime of using jargon. It is a crime against communication and if there's one thing that radicals need it is to be understood. However, is it necessary to use such particular terminology in order to convince people of the truth of your arguments? Its entirely possible that such terminology might alienate people who are looking for a simple 'hit' of insight, such as Twitter might provide. Insight isn't necessarily compactable into 140 chrs but precise use of language is one way of facilitating it. Sometimes its not only helpful but essential to be precise in your use of terminology.

from the horse's mouth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the most blatant exhibition of corporate sociopathy I have ever seen.

I have transcribed the words of the participants so as to really hammer home the message to anyone who might develop temporary deafness when confronted by the brutal truth of this man's words.

Trader: [The euro?] is gonna crash and its gonna fall pretty hard. Because markets are ruled right now by fear. Investors, the big money, the smart money. I'm talking about the big funds, the hedge funds, the institutions. They don't buy this plan. They basically know the market is toast. They know the stock market is finished. The euro, as far as they're concerned, is finished. They're moving their money away to safer assets, like treasury bonds, 30 yr bonds and the US dollar. So its not going to work.

Presenter: We keep hearing that whatever the politicians are suggesting, and admittedly its all been rather woolly so far, isn't right. Can you pin down exactly what would keep investors happy and make them feel more confident.

Trader: That's a tough one. Personally, it doesn't matter. You see I'm a trader. I don’t really care about that kind of stuff. If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that. So, for most traders its not about...we don't really care that much how they're going to fix the economy, how they're going to fix the whole situation. Our job is to make money from it. And, personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for 3 yrs. I have a confession, which is: I go to bed every night, I dream of another recession. I dream of another moment like this. Why? Because, people don’t seem to maybe remember, the 30s depression, the depression in the 1930s wasn't just about a market crash. There were some people who were prepared to make money from that crash. And I think anybody can do that. It isn't just for some people in the elite. Anybody can actually make money . . . its an opportunity. When the market crashes… When the euro and the big stock markets crash, if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this. For example, Hedging strategies is one, then investing in bonds, treasury bonds, that sort of stuff.

Presenter: If you could see the people around me, people's jaws have collectively dropped at what you've just said. We appreciate your candour but it doesn't help the rest of us. or the rest of the eurozone.

Trader: I would say this. Listen. I would say this to everyone who's watching this: This economic crisis is like a cancer. If you just wait and wait, thinking this is going to go away, just like a cancer its going to grow and its gonna be too late. What I would to say to everybody is: Get prepared. Its not the time right now to . . wishful thinking, that the government is gonna sort things out. The government doesn't rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world. Goldman Sachs does not care about this rescue package, neither does the big funds. So, actually ... I would actually tell people, I want to help people. People can make money from this, its not just traders. What they need to do is learn how to make money from a downward market. The first thing people should do is to protect their assets. Protect what they have, because in less than 12 months, my prediction is that millions of people's savings are going to vanish. And this is just the beginning. So, I would say: be prepared and act now. The biggest risk people can take right now is not acting.

This is it, people. If you ever had any doubts about whether the people and institutions this appalling character refers to are actually benign wealth-creators or unabashed, sociopathic parasites, there's your answer. They. Don't. Care. About. Us.

Its time they were stopped: Nationalise the banks. Move to quash speculation. Close the tax loopholes.



Addition:

Looks like John B is right in the comments. This guy isn't a trader. He's not even authorised by the FSA. In his own words, he's "an attention seeker". 

I saw someone on Twitter musing whether he was, in fact, a member of activist group The Yes Men. At the time I thought, 'nah'. In fact, he is a hoaxer, just not a very good one. Which is a real shame. The reason I got so excited about this video was that its rare for the public facade of financiers to crack, for them to admit to the fundamentally sociopathic nature of what they do. This lie is so robustly defended by the media and the government that it is currently pervasive. Most of the population aren't aware that one of the biggest industries in this country is fundamentally hostile to the state and to the 'poor' (meaning anyone on less than £200,000). General dissatisfaction with "bankers" resulting from the fuckyounomic implosion threatened to bring this truth to light but, despite the valient efforts of activists and campaigning journalists, it remains obscured by a general air of approval emanating from the media and the government that is all it takes these days to conceal enormous crimes. I'm talking the astonishing public herd mentality that "if no-one's acting against it, it must be fine". For example, read the business page of any newspaper and marvel at the absence of critical, joined-up thinking.

NB: Please don't refer to the Vicker's Report as if it is evidence of the government "doing something", its a pathetic fig-leaf-gesture to reform. 

electoral dysfunction

Johann brought out this old article he wrote during the last general election. Its pretty damning of the pseudo-democratic state of UK politics.

the broken down recovery vehicle, the private equity firm and £300 million tax-free profit

Rant . . . .rave . . . . inequality . . . .blah blah blah . . . . plutocracy . . . . waffle waffle . . . . rich getting richer . . . . . etc etc