Ian Bunn | Political & Popular Culture Arts

George Joshua Richard Monbiot the 50 year old British writer known for his environmental and political activism. Initially trained in Zoology, Monibiot joined the BBC Natural History Unit as a radio producer, making natural history and environmental programmes, before working as a current affairs producer and presenter. Working independently as an investigative journalist his activities led to his being made persona non grata in seven countries and being sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia in Indonesia. Monibiot has published an article in The Guardian titled ‘If you think we’re done with neoliberalism, think again’, claiming the global application of a fraudulent economic theory brought the west to its knees, yet for those in power, it offers riches. Monbiot states “How they must bleed for us. In 2012, the world’s 100 richest people became $241 billion richer. They are now worth $1.9 trillion: just a little less than the entire output of the United Kingdom. This is not the result of chance. The rise in the fortunes of the super-rich is the direct result of policies. Here are a few: the reduction of tax rates and tax enforcement; governments’ refusal to recoup a decent share of revenues from minerals and land; the privatisation of public assets and the creation of a toll-booth economy; wage liberalisation and the destruction of collective bargaining. The policies that made the global monarchs so rich are the policies squeezing everyone else. This is not what the theory predicted. …The remarkable growth in the rich nations during the 50s, 60s and 70s was made possible by the destruction of the wealth and power of the elite, as a result of the 1930s depression and the second world war. Their embarrassment gave the other 99% an unprecedented chance to demand redistribution, state spending and social security, all of which stimulated demand. Neoliberalism was an attempt to turn back these reforms. Lavishly funded by millionaires, its advocates were amazingly successful – politically. Economically they flopped.”

Inspired by George Monbiot, The Guardian ow.ly/hfJpW Image source Slim Virgin ow.ly/hfJmS

Zillah Eisenstein the American political theorist, activist and Professor of Politics having written books that have tracked the rise of neoliberalism both within the U.S. and across the globe. Eisenstein has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Female militarism: Band of sisters?’ claiming that fighting on the front lines of a war zone doesn’t exactly reflect feminist ideals or progress towards gender equality. Eisenstein states “…US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military’s official ban on women in combat. This overrides a 1994 Pentagon ruling that excluded women from artillery, armour, infantry and other combat. …I wonder who really wants to serve in combat? Who wants to fight wars in the first place? Who wants to be on the front lines and kill other human beings – or better yet, get killed themselves? …Not all, but many who “choose” to enlist have few other alternatives. Many are in the US military today because of a lack of alternatives in a shrinking job market. …The pay is about equal between Wal-Mart and the military, although the latter job can get you killed. I do not think that many enlisted women are any more pro-war than I am. It is a job, albeit a dangerous one. The rest of us are just lucky enough to have other options. …My point is that the global economy and its shrinking labour market, everywhere, is growing more militarist and more female at the same time. And, it is really important to not confuse the presence of females, especially in combat, with gender “equality”. …There is less and less equality for everyone, men and women alike. Equal to what and to whom and for what? I am thinking about that 99 percent. US military women are still part of the 99 percent, unequal even if now with full citizen rights.”

Inspired by Zillah Eisenstein, Aljazeera ow.ly/hfL1N Image source Facebook ow.ly/hfKZS

Jodi Dean the 44 year old American International lecturer having written widely about politics and culture with activist interests include digital media, post-structuralism, neoliberalism, psychoanalysis, and the OCCUPY movement. Dean has published an article in The Guardian titled ‘Occupy and UK Uncut: the evolution of activism’ claiming the challenge these movements face is how to grow without becoming instruments of the systems they contest. Dean states “Earlier this month, Occupy Our Homes engaged in anti-foreclosure actions across the United States. In Atlanta and Minneapolis, activists helped families occupy vacant bank-owned homes. In Sacramento and Detroit, groups protected residents from eviction. In Philadelphia, Chicago, and St Louis, demonstrators protested against foreclosure. Thousands took part in these actions, yet coverage was restricted to local media outlets. Why did the protests get so little attention? Declining public interest in Occupy doesn’t account for it. Occupy Sandy, a relief effort organised by Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters to assist the victims of the hurricane, was covered. …Occupy Sandy’s mutual aid connected the hurricane to a critique of capitalism for failing to provide infrastructures adequate to the needs of an urban population in a changing climate. It has used its access to the community as an opportunity for consciousness-raising. Similarly, UK Uncut links its attack on Starbucks and Google with a larger analysis of the connections between profits for corporations and cuts for people. It channels anger at corporations’ failure into an exposition of the deeper unfairness of the system itself. Both movements are embedding themselves deeper into society. Instead of jumping from issue to issue or rising up only to sink back down, they are building solidarity. They’re organising for a longer struggle, finding ways to create spaces for debate within a broader commitment to collective, egalitarian solutions.”

Inspired by The Guardian ow.ly/gwUNH image source lareviewofbooks ow.ly/gwULb

Joseph Samuel Nye the 75 year old American political science Professor and co-founder of the international relations theory neoliberalism, developing the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence. Nye has published an article on the Project Syndicate where he discusses with reference to Syria, when should States intervene militarily to stop atrocities in other countries. Nye states, …The idea of a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) was adopted unanimously at the UN’s World Summit in 2005, but subsequent events showed that not all member states interpreted the resolution the same way. Russia has consistently argued that only Security Council resolutions, not General Assembly resolutions, are binding international law. Meanwhile, Russia has vetoed a Security Council resolution on Syria, and, somewhat ironically, Annan has been called back and enlisted in a so-far futile effort to stop the carnage there. …In fact, R2P is more about struggles over political legitimacy and soft power than it is about hard international law. Some Western lawyers argue that it entails the responsibility to combat genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under the various conventions of international humanitarian law. But Russia, China and others are reluctant to provide a legal or political basis for actions such as what occurred in Libya. …There are other reasons why R2P has not been a success in the Syrian case. Drawn from traditional “just war” theory, R2P rests not only on right intentions, but also on the existence of a reasonable prospect of success.”

Inspired by Project Syndicate ow.ly/clw0V image source TED ow.ly/clw6o

Neoliberal policy responsible for declining growth (April 29th 2012)

Jason Hickel a USA Anthropologist specializing in democracy, violence, globalization, and ritual has published an article on Sham Media speaking of today’s dominant economic ideology ‘ neoliberalism’ being taken for granted as natural and inevitable.  In the article Hickel states “In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher had to convince people that there was “no alternative” to neoliberalism.  Today, this assumption comes ready-made; it’s in the water, part of the common-sense furniture of everyday life, and generally accepted as given by the Right and Left alike.  But it has not always been this way.  Neoliberalism has a specific history, and knowing that history is an important antidote to its hegemony, for it shows that the present order is not natural or inevitable, but rather that it is new, that it came from somewhere, and that it was designed by particular people with particular interests. If an economist living in the 1950s had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today’s standard neoliberal toolkit, they would have been laughed right off the stage. At that time pretty much everyone was a Keynesian, a social democrat, or some shade of Marxist. … neoliberal policy is directly responsible for declining economic growth and rapidly increasing rates of social inequality – both in the West and internationally.”

Inspired by Jason Hickel http://ow.ly/anIJb image source Sham Media http://ow.ly/anJps