AFMÆLISMÁLÞING Í NORRÆNA HÚSINU

Norræna húsið - 2

Í tilefni af 70 ára afmæli mínu efndi ég til málþings í Norræna húsinu í Reykjavík þar sem staða mála í verkalýðs- og stjórnmálum "var tekin út".  Spurt var hvort svo væri ef til vill komið fyrir velferðarþjóðfélaginu, það svo skekið af einkavæðingu og niðurskurði, að hreinlega þyrfti að finna það upp á nýjan leik. Vegna þess hve erlendir gestir voru fjölmennir á málþinginu, þá fór það fram á ensku og því spurt:
DO WE NEED TO REINVENT SOCIETY?

Fullt var út úr dyrum, innlendir gestir og erlendir, víðs vegar að úr þjóðfélaginu. Styrmir Gunnarsson, fyrrverandi ritstjóri, gerði ágætlega grein fyrir því sem fram fór í grein í Mogunblaðinu sl. laugardag, listamönnum sem fram komu og hverjir tóku til máls.

Leyfi ég mér að vísa til skrifa hans hér:

Eru Bogesenar okkar tíma búnir að yfirgefa þorpið?

Ráðstefna Ögmund­ar Jónas­son­ar gæti orðið upp­hafið að end­ur­nýj­un vinstri hreyf­inga

Sl. þriðju­dag var hald­in ráðstefna fyr­ir fullu húsi í Nor­ræna hús­inu um þá spurn­ingu hvort við þyrft­um að end­ur­skapa sam­fé­lagið. Vegna er­lendra fyr­ir­les­ara fór ráðstefn­an fram á ensku og á þeirri tungu var spurn­ing­in sem leitað var svara við þessi: „Do we have to rein­vent society?"

Það var Ögmund­ur Jónas­son, fyrr­um þingmaður og ráðherra Vinstri grænna, sem efndi til þessa málþings í til­efni af sjö­tugs af­mæli sínu þann dag. Hann sagði mér að þetta yrði „mjög rauð ráðstefna", sem vakti áhuga minn á að hlýða á það sem fram mundi fara.

Hvað skyldi vera að ger­ast á meðal vinstri manna um þess­ar mund­ir?

Nú á tím­um, þegar lítið er um umræður og skoðana­skipti um meg­in­mál í þjóðfé­lags­mál­um, er slíkt fram­tak ein­stak­lings til mik­ill­ar fyr­ir­mynd­ar. Á starfs­vett­vangi stjórn­mála­flokk­anna er orðið ótrú­lega lítið um slík­ar umræður.

Á af­mæl­is­ráðstefnu Ögmund­ar voru nokkr­ir er­lend­ir fyr­ir­les­ar­ar og þótt þeir hafi komið víða að má segja að meg­inþráður í gagn­rýni þeirra á það sem liðið er hafi ekki bara snúið að því sem hér er kallað ný­frjáls­hyggja, held­ur líka á þá jafnaðar­menn sem und­ir merkj­um „New La­bour" og Tony Bla­ir, þáver­andi leiðtoga brezka Verka­manna­flokks­ins, hafi nán­ast gengið til liðs við þá sem aðhyllt­ust þá hug­mynda­fræði.

Allyson Pollock lækn­ir var í hópi fyr­ir­les­ara, en hún hef­ur geng­ist fyr­ir lög­sókn á hend­ur brezk­um stjórn­völd­um vegna einka­væðing­ar heil­brigðisþjón­ust­unn­ar. Einn af sam­starfs­mönn­um henn­ar í því verk­efni var hinn heimsþekkti Steven Hawk­ing, sem nú er lát­inn. Brend­an Mart­in veit­ir for­stöðu hug­veitu sem nefn­ist Pu­blic World. Þá var þarna þýzk­ur járniðnaðarmaður, Jur­gen Buxbaum, sem síðar öðlaðist há­skóla­mennt­un, og John Holloway, sem er pró­fess­or við há­skóla í Mex­ikó. Kúr­d­ar áttu sinn full­trúa á ráðstefnu Ögmund­ar, sem var Havin Gu­enser, sem kynnti nýj­ar þjóðfé­lags­hug­mynd­ir í þeirra röðum. Loks var í þess­um hópi Vicente Paolo Yu, sem kem­ur að alþjóðastarfi verka­lýðsfé­laga.

Eins og sjá má var hér vandað mjög til verka. Í upp­hafi spilaði Vla­dimir Stoup­el á flygil og jafn­framt léku tvær ung­ar stúlk­ur, Danielle Ang­el­ique og Gabrielle Victoria, á fiðlur.

Á marg­an hátt má segja að Ögmund­ur sjálf­ur hafi flutt at­hygl­is­verðustu ræðuna í upp­hafi. Hann lýsti þeirri skoðun að stjórn­mála­heim­ur­inn væri að fjar­lægj­ast gras­rót­ina og jafn­vel verka­lýðshreyf­ing­in líka. Hann vísaði með skemmti­leg­um hætti í Sölku Völku og átök henn­ar við Bo­gesen, sem átti allt í þorp­inu en hann hefði þó vitað hvað þar var að ger­ast. Bo­gesen­ar okk­ar tíma hafa yf­ir­gefið þorpið, sagði Ögmund­ur, og vita ekki leng­ur hvað þar er á ferð.

Get­ur verið að þetta séu líka ör­lög stjórn­mála­manna okk­ar tíma, að þeir sjái „þorpið" ekki leng­ur og viti þess vegna ekki hvað þar er að ger­ast?

Sól­veig Anna Jóns­dótt­ir, formaður Efl­ing­ar, var í hópi fyr­ir­les­ara og setti fram at­hygl­is­verða gagn­rýni á viðbrögð verka­lýðshreyf­ing­ar­inn­ar við Hrun­inu. Hún lýsti þeirri skoðun að í stað þess að nota tæki­færið og beita sér fyr­ir breyt­ing­um hefði verka­lýðshreyf­ing­in tekið þátt í því eft­ir Hrun að end­ur­reisa það sam­fé­lag sem var. Það var ljóst af viðbrögðum fund­ar­manna að þetta sjón­ar­mið náði sterk­lega til þeirra.

Ekki er ólík­legt að þarna hafi talað einn af framtíðarleiðtog­um vinstri manna á Íslandi.

Það er al­veg ljóst að stjórn­mála­hreyf­ing­ar vinstri manna hafa verið í djúpri til­vist­ar­kreppu síðustu ára­tugi og al­veg sér­stak­lega frá fjár­málakrepp­unni 2008. Það á við bæði hér og ann­ars staðar. En það er at­hygl­is­vert að sú til­vist­ar­kreppa hef­ur lítið sem ekk­ert verið til umræðu meðal vinstri manna hér.

Það er ekki frá­leitt að halda því fram að þessi ráðstefna Ögmund­ar Jónas­son­ar hafi verið eins kon­ar byrj­un á því að vinstri menn snúi blaðinu við og reyni að finna sér fót­festu á ný. Fyrsta skrefið í þá átt er að sjálf­sögðu að skil­greina rétt hver vand­inn er.

Auðvitað eru vinstri menn ekki þeir einu sem þurfa að finna sér nýj­an far­veg. Það þurfa hægri menn líka að gera, eins og ég leit­ast við að fjalla um í bók minni Upp­reisn­ar­menn frjáls­hyggj­unn­ar - Bylt­ing­in, sem aldrei varð, sem út kom fyr­ir síðustu jól, þar sem m.a. er fjallað um póli­tíska veg­ferð þeirr­ar nýju kyn­slóðar sem kom til skjal­anna í Sjálf­stæðis­flokkn­um fyr­ir um fjór­um ára­tug­um og brunaði fram und­ir fán­um frjáls­hyggj­unn­ar. Sjálf­stæðis­flokk­ur­inn þarf ekki síður en vinstri menn að end­ur­hugsa og end­ur­nýja sína stefnu.

Og þá má velta því fyr­ir sér hvort raun­veru­lega beri mikið á milli þess­ara fylk­inga í mati á því hvernig eigi að end­ur­skapa sam­fé­lagið.

Í fyrr­nefndri bók seg­ir:

„Það er hægt að færa sterk rök fyr­ir því að skipt­ing­in í stjórn­mál­um á Íslandi sé ekki leng­ur á milli hægri og vinstri eða á milli ein­stakra flokka held­ur sé hún á milli þeirra fá­mennu sam­fé­lags­hópa, sem eru inni í valda­hringn­um og sam­an­standa af stjórn­mála­mönn­um, emb­ætt­is­mönn­um, sér­fræðing­um inn­an há­skóla­sam­fé­lags­ins og viss­um hóp­um í viðskipta- og at­vinnu­lífi og jafn­vel í fjöl­miðlun. Utan við þann hring stend­ur þorri þjóðar­inn­ar.

Þeir sem eru inn í valda­hringn­um not­færa sér aðstöðu sína út í yztu æsar."

Það sem er spenn­andi við sam­starf þeirra flokka sem standa að nú­ver­andi rík­is­stjórn er ein­mitt það hvort flokk­ar til hægri og vinstri geti náð sam­an um að end­ur­skapa sam­fé­lag okk­ar í ljósi feng­inn­ar reynslu.

Það á eft­ir að koma í ljós hvort það tekst.

Styrmir Gunnarsson
https://www.mbl.is/mogginn/bladid/grein/1691497/

Hér er síðan opnunarerindi mitt á málstofunni:

DO WE NEED TO REINVENT SOCIETY?
Strange question?
Some years ago it might have sounded strange but when I have been mentioning this to friends and colleagues that this was the theme I wanted to discuss at a seminar I was planning in connection with my 70 years birthday on the 17^th of July, everybody reacted as if this was the natural question of our day.

Everybody realizes that there are signs that society is coming apart. By privatization collective care and social responsibility is being transferred on to the shoulders of the individual user; the patient thus becoming a consumer and likewise the student youth. Gradually everything becomes business.

Another thing is that the institutional political world is drifting away from grass-root politics. Think about the phrases used by the political elite: Populism is said to be something terrible, reminiscent of the way patricians looked upon the plebeians or plebs and plebiscites, the very expression of democracy, in ancient Rome. In the day of Roosewelt and the New Deal in the United States, populism was talked of with respect, the association being democratic working class achievements. And then we have Brexit. It is spoken of as a disease without asking why it may be that half the population of a country is voting for leaving the EU.
Should we not be trying to understand the underlying reasons and if they are not worth contemplating. Could not the reasons for Brexit for many - I am not talking about Farage or Johnson and their like - be reaction against centralism, and not to be forgotten, the marketization of society under the auspices of the EU. Centralized market dictates have been the order of the day in Brussels for quarter of a century!
And then of course, and this applies to the EU in no small degree, secrecy and lack of transparency have characterized international trade agreements which, to an alarming extent, are depriving us of democratic power, us the plebs, that is, not the powerful and the rich, the patricians of our day!

And now fascism is creeping in, well that is hardly the description because, it is coming over us at an alarming speed.

We have come a long way from the British  Beverige commission of the 1940s providing the roadmap for the welfare state when  From the cradle to the grave became the slogan and the ideological basis of the welfare state, where every citizen should be taken care of from birth to death. The emphasis was on welfare and society, togetherness and cooperation.

Half a century later or there about along comes a Mrs Margaret Thatcher and tells us that "there is no such thing as society". And she explained, There are individual men and women, and there are families. But there is no such thing as society." And infamously she added: "Greed is good!"
With the sharp right turn in politics in the 80s and 90s there followed a change in moral values and soon no wrappings were thought to be needed to dampen the crude messages, such as the pursuance of self interest is for the general good. No, now the general good was left out, it was thought safe to say that there was no such thing as society and that greed should be the accepted norm.

We soon found us in a new and completely different era. So convinced became the neoliberal world that a theses was put forward and in all seriousness that history had come to an end, now there was nothing more to fight about or choose between. Capitalism had triumphed. From now on the choice would not be between capitalism or socialism, even right or left but between Cornflakes and Coco puffs. From now on choices in society were choices by producers and consumers, choices we made in the shop or in the market place. Francis Fukyama did not quite put it this way, but this was the essence of the neo-liberalism we now have become so well acquainted with.  

But since Margaret Thatcher is being quoted, it should be remembered that she also said something, which throws light on political developments in the new are, which I have called the age of uncertainty.  When asked what she regarded to be her greatest political achievement in her career she answered:  

"Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds."

And exactly this had happened. As we got neo-liberals we now got new Labour  not only in Britain but in most western European countries and if I recall correctly Bill Clinton, west of the Atlantic, began to refer to the New Democrats, although of course, I hasten to add that great reservations should be made when comparing European and North American politics.

But while the neo-liberals sought their ideological roots, the neo-labourites abandoned theirs. There was talk of a Third way where theorists like Anthony Giddens tried to find a compromise. The institutional world of politics found this heaven-sent, especially the social democratic parties, while I believe the public at large simply became perplexed. Uncertainty began to creep in and gradually also disillusionment. And then fascism.

Even the trade unions were seen, especially by younger people as institutions apart and removed from their daily life world.

The German economist Wolfgang Streeck said in an interview published in the Guardian some months ago that capitalism was broken and more specifically he said, and I want to quote him directly since this is relevant to my argumentation, "modern capitalism has relied on its enemies to wade in with the lifebelt of reform. During the Great Depression of the 30s, it was FDR's Democrats who rolled out the New Deal, while Britain´s unionists allied with Keynes ... Compare that with now. Over 40 years, neoliberal capitalism has destroyed its opposition."

So, the life-belt is gone. And with it has also gone the relative stability and predictability my generation in Western Europe grew up with.

But the changes are more far-reaching and drastic. The Icelandic Nobel Prize winner in literature, Halldór Laxness in his books dealt with the realities of life. One such book is called Salka Valka and tells the story of a poor working class girl and her relationship with the big wealthy merchant, Mr. Bogesen who owned everything in in the fishing village where they both lived. He had the life of the entire community in his hands. But he was there and he was visible. And the fate of the people was visible to him.

Not any more. The Bogesens of our day have long since left the village. They are aware of the source of their wealth only through the stock exchange where they, far removed from the reality of society, make their decisions on where to invest at this or that moment in time!

And their money we are now told, is stored away in money heavens like Panama.  For these people there indeed is no such thing as society.

Progress was something my generation believed in. People believed the world was getting better, or at least conditions were constantly being created, for improvement and progress.

We of course laughed at Fukujama but we have stopped believing in progress, rather we ask about the price of progress. The price paid in society and in the environment.

The predictability that was characteristic of yesterday´s world is no more. Nothing is to be counted on.

We should recognize that we live in an age of uncertainty where nothing can be taken for granted. Certainly not democracy! That is something we all should think about very seriously.

Although the Bogesens have left their villages and for them the villagers are out of sight, the good thing about the world is that it is becoming visible to all and through better means of communications we can act together. People who in former days were first and foremost occupied with their own condition now have the whole world in view and observe in amazement and with growing concern and anger what is happening in the upper echelons, the enormous profits and bonuses of capital speculation and then the revelations of hidden fortunes, by people who do not recognize that there is such a thing as society and social responsibilities.  

No wonder the institutional world of politics which has provided no convincing answers or even tried to tackle these immoralities on the one hand, and grassroots politics on the other, are drifting apart.

In order to bring them together we must rethink politics. Try to understand how unemployment and insecurity are to be dealt with in order to prevent opportunist and fascist movements coming into being and try to understand the political and moral undertones of today with emphasis on the market and too little on human rights and social equality not to forget, democracy. 

Above all we must always side with democracy.

In every person there is good to be found. We must create conditions for the good to thrive and flourish.
Innermost, everybody wants to lead a good life and to live in peace and security in a just society.

How about starting by agreeing that there ought to be something such as society? And that if it has ceased to exist, we must reinvent it!