Riots, protests, and materialism

If material advancement provides social glue, then economic growth is essential to ensuring stabilit

Riots and student protests in the UK, worldwide demonstrations against bankers and capitalism in the bigger advanced economies -- it's all happening. Is there a connecting thread? Undoubtedly. All are markers of a period of quite extraordinary social change.

Until recently, the world's advanced economies had experienced nearly two decades of the biggest increase in prosperity in the history of mankind. This has been very fortunate for the majority of the population, especially those in the middle classes and above. As British anthropologist, Ernest Gellner, pointed out it in his acclaimed 1997 book, Nationalism, the material improvement in (most) people's lives creates political and social legitimacy.

Looked at this way, material advancement for the masses -- goods, services and experiences -- available at high streets, shopping malls and through the internet, is a "universal bribery fund" whereby the social order is maintained -- in other words, it takes over from ties of kinship or tribal loyalties in providing social glue. Buying off trouble through consumption, as Gellner also pointed out, is far more effective than the "old method of terror and superstition", which is still deployed in closed societies like Burma and North Korea (and until recently in Libya, but that's another story).
Up until 2008 when the banking crisis started to unfold, that is.

Bill Clinton got it spot on when he kept reminding himself of its political significance in the run-up to the 1992 US presidential election in the short, succinct phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." In other words, governments in liberal democracies with large middle-class electorates are given power primarily on the basis of their perceived economic competence.

But Gellner went one step further than the former US president; he rightly predicted that modern democracies will be in an awful predicament when the universal bribery fund is not quite so plentiful - " [when] the cornucopia temporarily dries up or even just slows down, as from time to time in the nature of things it must."

So, economic growth cannot and should not be taken for granted. It can falter and stutter. When it does governments can lose power very swiftly even if the reasons are beyond its control -- lying at an international level (where modern financial instruments and monetary flows create a level of complexity that is difficult for anyone to understand) rather than because of events on the domestic political scene. This is what lies behind the political and social instability of many of the world's advanced economies -- the end, at least for the moment, of a taken-for-granted cornucopia means that political leaders from Barack Obama to Angela Merkel and David Cameron are under considerable pressure to come up with a recipe for growth, while some George Papandreou and Silvio Berlusconi have been obliged to fall on their swords because they have conspicuously failed to do so.

Commentators differ on what all this means for the countries of North America, Europe and elsewhere. In a recent BBC roundtable discussion , celebrity investment manager Nicola Horlick opined that the advanced economies have reached the limits of their growth potential -- they have plateaued in other words, and respective populations will just have to get used to a permanent change in living standards. On the other hand, Will Hutton, chair of the Big Innovation Centre, reckons that current difficulties are a temporary blip, and that the endlessly creative capitalist economies of the US and Europe will renew themselves over the next two decades as well as seeing off the challenge from economies like China.

Whatever the outcome, the big lesson is that economic growth is vital to the maintenance of the social and political order -- both nationally and internationally. Even many of the world's top bankers, traditionally strong adherents of the trickle-down economic theory, have been forced to recognise that normal economic service is not about to resume shortly, and that with the sound of the protestors' chanting and drumming in their ears it is in their interests that the fruits of growth -- the universal bribery fund -- should be distributed in such a way that it includes as many people as possible.

Gordon Brown (remember him?) got it right when in a 2006 speech delivered to UN Ambassadors he talked about "a new paradigm that sees economic growth, social justice and environmental care advancing together can become the common sense of our age." Not quite as snappy or as focused as Bill Clinton's phrasing - note there are three ingredients rather than one -- but it's not a bad recipe for maintaining stability in complex multicultural societies and a densely interconnected world.

Dr Sean Carey is visiting lecturer in the Business School, University of Roehampton.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

Our union backed Brexit, but that doesn't mean scrapping freedom of movement

We can only improve the lives of our members, like those planning stike action at McDonalds, through solidarity.

The campaign to defend and extend free movement – highlighted by the launch of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement this month – is being seen in some circles as a back door strategy to re-run the EU referendum. If that was truly the case, then I don't think Unions like mine (the BFAWU) would be involved, especially as we campaigned to leave the EU ourselves.

In stark contrast to the rhetoric used by many sections of the Leave campaign, our argument wasn’t driven by fear and paranoia about migrant workers. A good number of the BFAWU’s membership is made up of workers not just from the EU, but from all corners of the world. They make a positive contribution to the industry that we represent. These people make a far larger and important contribution to our society and our communities than the wealthy Brexiteers, who sought to do nothing other than de-humanise them, cheered along by a rabid, right-wing press. 

Those who are calling for end to freedom of movement fail to realise that it’s people, rather than land and borders that makes the world we live in. Division works only in the interest of those that want to hold power, control, influence and wealth. Unfortunately, despite a rich history in terms of where division leads us, a good chunk of the UK population still falls for it. We believe that those who live and work here or in other countries should have their skills recognised and enjoy the same rights as those born in that country, including the democratic right to vote. 

Workers born outside of the UK contribute more than £328 million to the UK economy every day. Our NHS depends on their labour in order to keep it running; the leisure and hospitality industries depend on them in order to function; the food industry (including farming to a degree) is often propped up by their work.

The real architects of our misery and hardship reside in Westminster. It is they who introduced legislation designed to allow bosses to act with impunity and pay poverty wages. The only way we can really improve our lives is not as some would have you believe, by blaming other poor workers from other countries, it is through standing together in solidarity. By organising and combining that we become stronger as our fabulous members are showing through their decision to ballot for strike action in McDonalds.

Our members in McDonalds are both born in the UK and outside the UK, and where the bosses have separated groups of workers by pitting certain nationalities against each other, the workers organised have stood together and fought to win change for all, even organising themed social events to welcome each other in the face of the bosses ‘attempts to create divisions in the workplace.

Our union has held the long term view that we should have a planned economy with an ability to own and control the means of production. Our members saw the EU as a gravy train, working in the interests of wealthy elites and industrial scale tax avoidance. They felt that leaving the EU would give the UK the best opportunity to renationalise our key industries and begin a programme of manufacturing on a scale that would allow us to be self-sufficient and independent while enjoying solid trading relationships with other countries. Obviously, a key component in terms of facilitating this is continued freedom of movement.

Many of our members come from communities that voted to leave the EU. They are a reflection of real life that the movers and shakers in both the Leave and Remain campaigns took for granted. We weren’t surprised by the outcome of the EU referendum; after decades of politicians heaping blame on the EU for everything from the shape of fruit to personal hardship, what else could we possibly expect? However, we cannot allow migrant labour to remain as a political football to give succour to the prejudices of the uninformed. Given the same rights and freedoms as UK citizens, foreign workers have the ability to ensure that the UK actually makes a success of Brexit, one that benefits the many, rather than the few.

Ian Hodon is President of the Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union and founding signatory of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement.