|
CSM is Blogging.
In this section of the site you'll find blogs from some of those involved in CSM, including our Director, Andy Flannagan.
You can also check out our latest tweets here.
|
|
Who is Mike Buckley?
Mike is CSM’s North London rep – if you’re in North London and haven’t yet met for a coffee do get in touch.
Mike studied politics as part o  f his undergraduate degree in Birmingham and is following this up with a Masters in Theology, Politics and Faith Based Organisations at King’s College.
The Masters is providing an opportunity to look at political and economic issues from a faith standpoint – challenging and inspiring!
Mike has previously worked in international development with charities including Tearfund and World Vision. He currently works as a consultant and in grassroots politics in community organising with London Citizens. Mike is passionate about child and youth issues, the environment, the creation of an economic system that works for all and building community.
Follow Mike on Twitter here: @mdbuckley
|
Mike Buckley, 21/11/2011 |
0 Comments
|
Permalink
|
Introduction to Sam's Blog
Hello!
Welcome to my CSM blog! 
My name is Sam and this year I’m spending some time interning at The CSM.
A little intro to me:
I am a recent theology graduate and have spent time working in churches, schools and the odd stint working in retail. I currently spend half my week with CSM and the other half as a youth worker at my local church.
I am passionate about the Church taking both our message of hope seriously and the state of our world seriously.
For me, the connection between my Christian faith and political engagement is a very natural one to make. As people of faith, we have a narrative and a hope that must be a source of energy in the cause of progressive political action and political reform.
In the course of my time with CSM I intend to learn as much as possible and contribute what ever I can to encouraging Christians to make that leap into bridging the apparent gap between our faith and our politics.
In order to do that effectively I know I have much to learn about the workings of government and the political process, and also about economics. So much of political debate centres on economic issues, especially at present. This blog is intended to be a window into my learning experience with the CSM.
I hope you will join me on my journey and I hope it will prove useful for others on similar journeys.
|
Sam Buck, 15/11/2011 |
0 Comments
|
Permalink
|
DEMOCRACY VS ADOLESCENT CAPITALISM
The issue of public protest has come into sharp focus again in the last couple of weeks with the situation at St Paul’s Cathedral. The quasi-standoff has probably not done anyone in the immediate vicinity any favours, but it has brought into public discourse some discussion about global economics.
The pleasing thing is that people are starting to see that this is not just a debate stuck in the old spectrum of left and right. Folks are waking up to the fact that the two forces arrayed against each other are actually DEMOCRACY and ADOLESCENT CAPITALISM.
The present global economic architecture is light years away from what capitalism’s architects would have envisaged or wanted. It is a global teenager running wild, enjoying its licence, as it has been told that individual selfishness will somehow en masse work together towards a common good. Imagine telling a teenager that being selfish was not just the best path for themselves, but for the greater good of their world. Capitalism needs to grow up, and fast, or leave the playground.
That the battleground now lies between democracy and this teenager has been made even clearer by the embattled actions of the eurozone leaders, reduced to the role of mere appeasers, desperate to produce a positive response from the great god “the market”. The fact that we have subcontracted our decision-making as ethical humans to a herd whose job descriptions call them to act in self-interest says almost everything that needs said. In fact the metaphor of the teenager breaks down slightly here, because it conveys at least some humanity, no matter how inexperienced, or risky their behaviour may be. 70% of the trading on Wall St is controlled by trading algorithms which buy and sell shares in milliseconds. The speed of these programmes caused a $2BN drop in share prices last year in just 20 minutes, as one computer followed another at rapid speed. Humans don’t even get a look in. Yet this is the inhuman reality that is now causing leaders to be made and unmade in its image. We were told that this invisible hand would naturally root out inefficiencies in all situations, but this thesis has been shown to have no clothes in the last few years.
You can almost see every global leader looking back over their shoulder as they make speeches, ensuring that “the market” will agree and respond positively. Significantly George Osbourne even publicly confessed this after his last budget speech. Electing politicians will become meaningless unless democracy wrests back power from the monster that we have created. Politicians’ hands are tied while a gun is pointing at their head, holding all of us to ransom. There are too many vested interests and investments involved to allow a “day of reckoning”, where a power shift happens back towards people. And by people I don’t mean shareholders. I mean normal people who have to take responsibility for their actions in a way that shareholders simply don’t. I am very interested in the work that Michael Schluter at RelationshipsGlobal has been doing. They are calling for a new relationship between shareholders and directors, where there is accountability and responsibility as opposed to the present divide between shareholders with a purely financial interest and no responsibility, and directors as management, with no concern over the operation and impact of companies on their stakeholders and society generally.
So you can see why some feel that protest and peaceful awkwardness (if necessary) becomes the only option left, if politicians are impotent and nobody else will listen. I will fight tooth and nail for folks like this to be heard, because there are multi-million pound PR departments at trans-national corporations and banks making the opposite arguments. I may not always agree with protesters’ messages, tactics or methodology but to paraphrase the biblical proverb, I want to “speak up for those without a huge PR budget”.
This connects with a challenge I met today while participating in various radio discussions. People questioned whether Jesus had a “bias to the poor” as famously stated by David Shepherd, the ex-Bishop of Liverpool. Some were offended at the presumption that God is in some way prejudiced. I like to playfully discuss it like this. Perhaps it is less a dogmatic thing, and perhaps it is simply that in the context of injustice, we as a people obviously aren’t on the side of the poor, so someone has to be, and God steps into that gap.
Today I also heard many different arguments trumpeted for the maintenance of the status quo. There was much concern that those protesting are not being productive members of society. To that I said two things -
1 – I went to visit the protest on Saturday and many of those there are normal families with normal jobs – not the benefit scroungers or middle-class yuppies as they have been handily be portrayed. Of course some folks are there as “rent a mob”, but if you wait for your perfect protest you will wait a long time.
2 – To tell all those folks to put their heads down and simply work harder to play their part is like telling folks to pedal faster towards the edge of a cliff. So not everyone in that crowd has an economics degree, but at present you don’t need a degree in economics to realise that we are headed in a very dangerous direction and that those finding short-term fixes do not have a sustainable long-term plan.
Those folks do know that:
A nation which is devastatingly unequal will eventually explode. Protests will become not just a choice but the only course of action available. 25 years ago the ratio from top to bottom salary in a company was on average 14 to 1. In 2010 it was 128 to 1. 2 weeks ago the results of a survey of director’s pay was announced, stating that the average has gone up 50%. That is not happening at the bottom of the pile. Oh but you need to employ the best people, we hear. I don’t want our “best people” gambling for a living stuck in front of computer screens. I want them teaching, being youth workers and doctors, designing communities, nursing the infirm, and starting small businesses. And herein lies the rub. Entrepreneurs and enterprise get tarred with the same brush. Unhealthy class and professional lines are drawn. It is entirely possible to be pro-enterprise and anti-adolescent capitalism.
They also know that:
1.5 Trillion has been spent so far by the UK bailing out the banks – that’s £31,000 for every taxpayer in the country. It’s understandable why some may believe that there is “one rule for one and one rule for another”. Nothing seems to have changed, apart from some better CSR and PR from the banks. I don’t know about you, but I want a shop to be the best shop it can be, abiding by ethical guidelines. I don’t want it to run our schools or fund attention-grabbing projects. I want it to be a GOOD shop. (In the broadest sense of the word good.) I don’t want trans-national banks running healthcare programmes –I want them to be the best banks they can be. CSR and good PR will buy them time, but it is short-termism in the extreme, leading to a situation where we are even more beholden to those with cash to provide every service we want.
Entertainingly, health and safety concerns have been cited by the City of London Corporation as the reason for moving on the protest camp. When seen in the context of the big picture of the meltdown of the global financial system, it provides a neat irony. In terms of short-selling, credit derivative swaps, subprime mortgages and the like you have a whole profession of people blatantly disregarding the health and safety guidelines of high finance (when there actually were any). Most of the time, their suspect actions were left unchecked, in the most laissez-faire chapter of capitalism ever. Millions of people are now suffering as a result. Compare that to a few guy ropes tripping up someone taking an unwise route across a square. If the world of high finance was running a protest camp, there would not be any health and safety guidelines in the admirable way that the protesters have self-regulated themselves with regards to hygiene, recycling, and sharing. If the world of high finance was running a protest camp it would look more like a forest in the aftermath of a stag party paintballing, where it was every man for himself.
|
Andy Flannagan, 11/11/2011 |
0 Comments
|
Permalink
|
The Elephant in the Room
As I begin to look at and try to make sense of the world of economics - how the system works and what all the jargon means - I sense that my overall reaction to our economic system is a foregone conclusion. With all this talk of economic recovery, renewed growth versus austerity measures to nurse this sickly economy back to health, I can’t help but feel distinctly uncomfortable with the notion that growth = good.
I am a passionate believer in the need for serious global action on climate change; I believe that the single greatest threat to our civilisation is ourselves. Our insistence on maintaining a certain standard of living in the West at the expense of those in developing nations, and the myth that general economic growth in its current form is an indefinite possibility is the equivalent of shutting our eyes to the reality of our situation and hoping for the best.
Some of the core aims of socialist movements throughout the years have placed economic growth as a central aspect of policy and ‘revolutions’, some through working inside a capitalist system, like our own Labour Party, or in an attempt to bring about a new economic system altogether. In either case, the overriding drive towards economic growth from a socialist perspective has been striving to provide jobs, wage increases and better living conditions for those on the bottom rung of the societal ladder in an attempt to create a more egalitarian society.
These motivations are honourable ones and should, without a doubt be behind much of what we do as Christian Socialists. However, the mode through which greater equality is achieved cannot be sustainably sought through increased production and economic growth.
The basic and obvious road block to economic growth as we know it today, is of course the finite resources available on planet Earth to continue current levels of production, let alone ever increasing productivity. As we continue to dig up and drill down into the planet that we stand on, that sustains the processes that enable us to live, in order to sell them to others as commodities for monetary return, I would suggest that humanity does not ‘grow’ but is threatened all the more.
Green campaign groups, climate scientists and others have, over the past 50 years or so, managed to get environmental issues on the agenda of governments across the globe who are now constructing and implementing ‘green policies’ to meet certain CO2 reduction targets and the like. These are important steps forward, and hopefully continued pressure on governments and businesses will ensure this progress is maintained. But that isn’t where the story ends.
Successive governments have tried to oil the economic machine, provide more jobs, and lure industries and investment into the country whilst keeping up the ‘green’ rhetoric. You don’t have to do a lot of thinking to realise that these two priorities inevitably clash, usually to the detriment of our environment. I recently posted an article on the CSM website about the work of the Jubilee Debt Campaign focusing on their battle with the Export Credit Guarantee Department, part of the Business dept. The campaign highlights not only the massive amounts of ‘global south’ debt owed to the ECGD but also its bias in encouraging businesses that specialise in producing and selling high carbon emitting products and services, because they are in high demand and create swift returns on investment.
This is the perceived battle: between short term financial gain to keep the economy afloat and long term action to restructure our economy in ways that ensure the survival of our species and the Earth for generations to come.
I for one am fed up, day after day, of reading statistics about over population, increasing carbon emissions, melting ice caps and expanding deserts, starving people and depleted carbon sinks, whilst simultaneously hearing politicians and others, probably with the greatest vested interests, defending and making the case for ever increasing levels of growth. Global Climate change is a present and deadly reality, as species of plants and animals are wiped out to create space for development, vital links in the life sustaining processes on our planet are put under increased pressure, threatening to sever altogether. The problem is not purely a matter of fitting more people onto the planet, as a UN spokesperson seemed to suggest on News-night recently. The problem lies with the rate of resources each person consumes; the rate is increasing as the population continues to grow unsustainably. For example, the ecological footprint of those living in London is over 200 times the size of the city itself. [1]
If we are to have economic growth, in my opinion it must be focused on developing sustainable energy resources, transforming the way we go about business and life to leave as small a mark on our shared planet as possible. I am no expert, but there must be scope and plenty of jobs to be created in rolling out mass adaptations to properties, transport networks and energy production to improve the way we interact with the planet. Sure, it would cost a lot of money to initiate many reforms, but like any job creating industry, it has the scope to make money and boost the economy.
The other option, too radical for the majority to consider, is to start doing things another way. I’m not entirely sure what this other way would look like, many thinkers and activists have proposed alternative models of economics and society more sympathetic to the delicate balance of the environment, and each have their pros and cons. [2]
One thing in my view is inevitable though. As long as our society is built on an economics of excessive consumption and living beyond our means, our medium to long term future hangs in the balance.
People have become, to some extent, numb to the predictions of green campaigners and scientists prophesying doom if we don’t recycle more. We are generally more eager to hear about our rights and opportunities than our responsibilities to each other and the planet, but the truth is, we are all integrally connected to each other through our common environment. The sooner we can develop a discussion around the underlying systems that exacerbate our collective situation, the better.
No one is going to win elections whilst admitting that we will need to accept a relatively lower standard of living in the UK in order to advance social and climate justice. But the more people who see the folly of carrying on in the same way as always can raise their voices on this issue, the more that we can actively engage in the political processes that can make that difference and the greater chance there is of producing real change.
[1] http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/115654.aspx
[2] Newman, Socialism, A very short introduction, p109-111.
|
Sam Buck, 31/10/2011 |
0 Comments
|
Permalink
|
APOLOGIES
for the lack of recent blogging from me.
I have been struck down by a nasty tendonitis. Cricket, laptop and guitar combining to ill effect perhaps. MRI on 5th July. Please pray.
|
Andy Flannagan, 14/06/2011 |
0 Comments
|
Permalink
|
|
|