We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
By Jorge Majfud
The unemployed and unproductive poor who live off state aid are not really a bad deal for big business. Not only do they help to keep salaries depressed, as was already known in the 18th century, but also, in our civilization of things, they are perfect consumers.
The aid that these unemployed poor receive from the state goes entirely to the consumption of basic goods or entertainment and dis-track-tion, which means that mega-companies still continue to do a great business with taxpayers' money.
Of course, everything has its art and its line of shipwreck.
On the other hand, this reality serves for a critique or a speech that is in principle acceptable and entrenched in the popular consciousness of the rich world, a product of the media bombardment:
While the big companies produce (in various senses of the word) and create jobs, the loafers benefit from them through the state.
Large companies are the sacred cows of capitalist progress, and the State with its laziness are the scourges that prevent the acceleration of the national economy.
In the first instance it is true.
This mechanism not only maintains a culture of laziness in the lower classes waiting for that help from the State (when there is a social security system like in the United States) but also fuels the hatred of the working classes who must resign themselves to continue paying their taxes to maintain that margin of unemployed that basically mean a burden and also a permanent threat of increased crime and more spending in prisons.
Which is also true, since an unemployed professional is more likely to engage in some criminal activity than an active worker.
This class hatred maintains the status quo, and thus money continues to fluctuate from the working class to the executive class, among other means, via loafers-unemployed.
If those unemployed were in the work circuit, they would probably consume less and demand better wages and education.
They would be better organized, they would not have so much resentment for those who get up early to go to work, they would be less victims of the demagoguery of populist politicians and business sects that are, in short, the owners of capital and, above all, of social know-how, know-why and know-what are irrelevant.
For someone who must sell an annual minimum of tons of sugar to the food industry, so to speak, a worker will never be a better option than an unemployed person maintained by the state.
For healthcare entrepreneurs, neither.
Some recent studies indicate that the consumption of sugar in soda is as harmful to the liver as the consumption of alcohol, since the liver must still metabolize sugar (glycolysis), which is why drinking a soda, ultimately and Regardless of behavioral disturbances, it is the same as drinking whiskey (Nature, Dr. Robert Lustig, Univ. of California).
A Coke doesn't even have the health benefits of wine.
However, in recent years the proportion of sugar in beverages and the amount consumed by each individual has been increasing throughout the world, despite the fact that our body only had time to evolve to tolerate the sugar in fruits, one season at a time. year.
Specialists believe that this increase in consumption is due to political pressure from companies that are involved in the marketing of sugar.
As a result, in the United States and many other countries we have increasingly obese and sicker populations, which in turn means higher profits for the healthcare industry and pharmaceutical companies.
But this is how the logic of late capitalism works, which is the global logic today: if there is no consumption, there is no production and without it there are no profits.
It would be much healthier for consumers if vendors of tasty salt-sugar shocks assaulted every consumer before entering a supermarket.
But this, like the tax increase, is politically incorrect and too easy for consumers to visualize.
I was always struck by the universal fact that drug addicts steal and kill honest people to buy drugs and do not rob or assault the drug dealers themselves, which would be a more direct and immediate path for a desperate person.
But the answer is obvious: it is always easier to assault an honest worker than a criminal who knows the field.
Usually the latter is almost impossible, at least for a common consumer.
The primary objective of any company is profits and everything else is discourses that try to legitimize something that cannot be changed within the purely capitalist logic.
When this logic works smoothly, it is called progress.
Companies progress and as a consequence individuals progress, towards their own destruction and that of others.
New York City recently banned the sale of the giant soda bottles on the grounds that they encouraged excessive sugar consumption.
This type of measure would never be taken, or even proposed, by a private company whose objective is to sell, unless it sells mineral water.
But in this case the explicit prohibition of one company over another would go against the laws of the market, which is why this fight normally occurs according to Darwin's laws, where the strongest devour the weakest.
These limits to the "invisible hand of the market" can only be set by governments.
The same happened with the fight against smoking.
Governments are usually infested, inoculated by the lobbies of large corporations and tend to respond to their interests, but they are not monoliths and every so often they remember their reason for being, according to modern precepts.
Then they remember that they exist for the population, and not the other way around, and they act accordingly, replacing profits with collective health.
The freedoms have not progressed by business and financial corporations but in spite of them.
They have been progressed throughout history by those who have opposed the hegemonic or dominant powers of the moment.
Centuries ago those powers were the churches or the totalitarian states, like the old kings and their aristocracies, as in the Soviet Union and its satellites.
For several centuries until today, more and more, those powers reside in the corporations that are those that possess the power in the form of capital.
Any truth that comes out of the mainstream media will be controlled directly or in a subtle way - for example, through self-censorship - by these large firms, which are the ones that maintain the media through advertisements.
The media no longer survive, as in the 19th century and much of the 20th century, from the sale of copies.
In other words, the mainstream media are less and less dependent and, therefore, owed less and less to the middle and working class.
The digital age may one day reverse this process, but for the moment isolated individuals are limited to reproducing news and social narratives prefabricated by the mainstream media that basically live off the commercials of large companies and corporations.
That is to say, the social superegoes.
Control is indirect, subtle, and relentless.
Anything that goes against the interests of advertisers will mean the withdrawal of capital and, therefore, the decline and end of these media, which will leave room for others to fulfill their role as puppets.
With some exceptions, neither the poor nor the workers can lobby parliaments.
In times of elections, it is the corporations who will put billions to choose one candidate or the other.
None of the candidates will question the basic reality that supports the existence of this logic, but whoever is elected and then elected -or vice versa- will be mortgaged in their promises when they assume power and must respond accordingly: no company, no lobby puts million dollars somewhere without considering that as an investment.
If they put it to fight hunger in Africa, it will be a moral investment, “what is left over”, as Jesus said referring to the alms of the rich.
If they put it in a presidential candidate, it will obviously be an investment of another kind.
The disproportionate power of these corporations, many secret or discreet, are the worst attack against democracy in the world. But few will be able to say it without being labeled idiots.
Or they will appear in some large media spokesmen for the establishment, because any media that claims to be democratic will have to pay a tax to its hegemony allowing some truly critical opinions to filter through.
These, of course, are exceptions, and will come into conflict with a public accustomed to the daily sermon who holds the opposite point of view.
That is to say, they will be understood as children's products of those who do not know "how the world works" and defend the unemployed idlers who live off the State, while the State lives off and punishes the most successful large companies.
Especially in times of crisis, the State punishes them with tax cuts, loans without term and bailouts without limits.
Since the last great economic crisis of 2008 in the United States, for example, large companies and corporations have not stopped increasing their profits while the reduction in employment has been weak and a workhorse for the opposition to the government.
The economists most consulted by the mainstream media call this "increased productivity."
In other words, with fewer workers, greater benefits are obtained.
The workers that are left over as a result of the increase in productivity are transferred to the sphere of the accursed state that must ensure that - although demoralized or for that reason - they continue to consume with the money of the middle class to further increase the profits of the merchants of the Ruling elites who, without paying those wages but still selling them the same trinkets and the same sugary sodas and the same salty chips, will see the effectiveness, productivity and profits of their admirably successful companies further increased.
We can call all this perverse mechanism "the double business of unemployment" or "the miracles of financial crises."
Jorge Majfud, Jacksonville University