This text was originally published by Jesper Ahlin Marceta via his blog and translated by Helena Prytz. 

FREEDOM. Neo-liberalism is dead. Self-inflicted, it is not a day too soon. In his article in the Expressen newspaper, Payam Moula from the left-wing think tank Tiden makes a philosophical interpretation of the contemporary development which demands a response. The liberal individualism must be defended.

As editor-in-chief of the social democratic magazine Tiden (meaning The Time) Moula argues that the decade we are just leaving behind is a decade when ‘(neo) liberalism finally died, both politically and intellectually’. Grotesque inequalities and massive injustices mixed into a ‘toxic cocktail’ have resulted in ‘the legitimate disappointment in social development, politics and establishment’.

 Indeed, there is much to be said about this analysis. Nevertheless, Payam focuses primarily on the liberal individualism, which he claims is wrong and destructive in its foundations.

 According to this view, the human being is a social atom completely isolated from others. Such views do not take into consideration that the human being is a social animal or that such things as loneliness can be terrible, which is why friendships are a good thing. The full ideological understanding of human beings is wrong. It separates humans and leads to communities, cultures and societies breaking down.

 Therefore, the labour movement should at the time of ‘our crisis’ choose a different way of looking at humans, one that is natural and leads to a good life and a good society. Payam does not state what that means. This omittance to explain what he means is also seen in some of the friends he is referring to – maybe because the alternatives to liberal individualism are horrifying under normal circumstances.

For a start, Payam’s theory about atomical individualism is an old one. It is also a malicious portrait. As far back as the 1930s, John Dewey, who was an individualist, wrote that socially and culturally isolated individuals are ‘monstrosities’. A decade later, Friedrich A. Hayek wrote that this criticism is the ‘silliest of the common misunderstandings’ because the individualists are ‘starting from men whose whole nature and character is determined by their existence in society’. 

Instead of individuality, it was the group belonging that decided how one particular human should relate to others. Individualism has contributed to the breakdown of this social determinism in which social and economic circumstances decided the human destiny.

Sure, some liberals have the kind of view on human beings that Payam is ascribing to all liberals, but they are few. Most such liberals are found in different youth organisations where they ideologically rage at meetings, boring the other members. The idea that humans are social atoms has very weak support among liberals both in politics and in philosophy. Such views are not ‘dominating’, as Payam claims.

The malicious portrait of individualism that Payam is presenting is sinister, partly because it is ascribing views to liberals which they do not have. This is dishonest, but it also hides individualism’s merits.

 Individualism argues that individuals deserve attention and that they have a particularly high value compared to other moral differences, such as group-based interests. In my view (shared by many), the political and social impact of the ideology belongs to humanity’s main achievements – something that can be compared to agricultural and scientific revolutions.

Our history can illuminate something of the value of individualism. Before individualism made a breakthrough in Sweden, the population was divided into social groups such as priesthood, nobility, bourgeoisie and peasantry. Humans were social, political and judicial subjects in relation to being group members – not individuals.

Instead of individuality, it was the group belonging that decided how one particular human should relate to others. Individualism has contributed to the breakdown of this social determinism in which social and economic circumstances decided the human destiny.

During the 20th century, individualist ideas created a foundation for individual taxation, which liberated many women from a predetermined social function in the family. Today, individualism is a motivating factor when it comes to things such as that a private person should have the right to decide about her medical treatment – the family or its leader should not be the ones deciding which medical treatments another individual should undergo, for example. This is also important when it comes to counteracting the rise of local clan societies.

Even the critics acknowledge the many virtues of individualism. Charles Taylor, one of the philosophers mentioned in Payam’s article, argues that it was individualism which provided humans with a right to choose their lifestyles with their conscience and beliefs. Previously, people were often stuck in a particular place in a particular role which it was almost unthinkable to deviate from, but now they are liberated.

Karl Marx, to continue with philosophers mentioned by Payam, argued that the historical development was going in the direction of individualisation and that it was a good thing. Individuality, according to Marx, concerns the extent to which a human being has achieved his potential and become a free and creative individual in society.

In the historical development, according to Marx, people are transformed into individuals in step with achieving increased control over their social existence. Communism, argued Marx, was an individualistic last stop where the human being has become complete.

Individualism has other merits and defenders. The socialist and liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that individualism allows the human to flourish. As the contemporary philosopher George Kateb puts it – individualism means more than expressiveness, sensibility and a feeling of liveliness. Research shows that individualistic norms promote democracy and economic growth, make it easier to handle common resources (which is critical from an ecological and climate perspective, and contribute to the equality between genders.

Few philosophers and contemporary thinkers would defend atomism today, i.e. the caricature of individualism that Payam is the latest of many to reiterate. Today’s individualists are discussing the very aspect that Payam claims is missing in individualism: how the human being is positioned socially and the effect that has on us.

Among the research areas that individualists are pursuing in academia are questions such as what makes a human being able to competently make decisions for herself in hazardous situations, given that risks are at least partially dependent social factors and how the social framework of the statement of the fact affects how it is perceived. Moreover, just during the last 15 years, robust theories about the individual as a socially and physically constructed being have been developed by philosophers such as John Christman and Rachel Haliburton.

Much of the idea-packages of the individualist philosophers can be found in our daily life. Those freedoms that our liberal democracies are protecting are individualism’s values – individuality, expressiveness, personal autonomy. In Sweden for example, liberal individualists argue in favour of individualisation of parental insurance, partly because they believe that it is hard for the individual to make life choices completely independent from their social expectations that influence their decisions.

It is, therefore, a pity for many reasons that an editor of a social democratic magazine is putting individualism in a glass bowl and encouraging the labour movement to make a choice.

Payam is arguing with the support of, among others, the conservative political theorist Patrick Deneen’s theories that the labour movement should promote ‘traditions and other things that empower community’. In the book, Payam is referring to Deneen argues against social mobility and in favour of a return to social determinism. Deneen believes that real pluralism is only created when people are restricted to living in those geographical and social contexts into which they were born.

Furthermore, Deenen is searching for a freedom-term that is ‘compatible with authority’ and would make it possible to pin down people socially while simultaneously claiming that they are free. Nevertheless, an idea about freedom which is compatible with authority is in the end only an idea for authority.

When Deneen’s book was published, he was invited by Viktor Orbán – who in the previous year had banned gender studies from his country’s universities – to a public meeting. The two were re-joined in front of the cameras the two agreed that the future is based on ‘national and family values rather than on liberalism’. It is in light of this that one should read Payam’s pitch for his article in Expressen, where he states that the modern liberalism is a ‘disease’ that has ‘spread like a cancer’ and ‘has to be eliminated’.

Payam’s attack on the ‘liberal human view’ does not lead to one but two choices for the labour movement, mainly the following:

It is possible to conserve social structures as the conservative thinker Deneen wishes, or one can act in favour of improving them and creating new structures, as the progressive individualists want. Is the labour movement going to choose a conservative or a progressive line? The answer makes a difference when it comes to such things as the question of whether parental insurance should be individualised: a conservative labour movement does not promote feminism.

Moreover, people can either be liberated from the social structures that are making their lives follow a determined path, something that individualists are arguing in favour of and that Swedish Social Democrats have supported in the past. Alternatively, people can be pushed back into old structures. What is the choice labour movement’s choice: freedom or authority?

Earlier, I have argued that individualism can unite liberals and socialists in the struggle to liberate the human being from social and historical determinism. Together, we should change the circumstances that are infringing our possibilities to create our lives. Payam’s assumptions seem to be the exact opposite, which is deeply regrettable.

The post The choice for the labour movement: authoritarian conservatism or progressive individualism? first appeared on Opulens.

WELFARE. The idea of basic income has a long history. In Europe, during the last decades, it has transformed from a theoretical approach to the practical implementation as with the experiment in Finland during 2017-2019.

In Switzerland, a referendum in 2016 took place where citizens voted about the issue concerning the government providing every citizen with a guaranteed citizen salary. The proposal was later rejected by a significant marginal. Namely, around 74% voted against. However, despite the relevant terms basic income, citizen income or citizen salary a considerable difference within the debate.

The ongoing debate and the supporters of the basic income policy can be divided into three main categories: the economic-liberal, the welfare supporters and the economic-growth critics. In its original, the idea of the basic income, such as argued by academic Phillipe van Parijs, should be provided to each individual and citizen within the society. In practice, it means that a basic income should, by the state government, be given, for example, both a businessman who earns several million euros per year as well as to a low-income job seeker.

One of the most prominent specifics of the basic income idea is that it has broader support within the ideological sphere since political thinkers from left to the right, from freedom to authoritarian side, have been supporting the idea. The economic-liberal side of the debate has different political ambition, based on two main arguments. The first one is to reduce the overall size and expenditure of the welfare state by cutting down the size of bureaucracy and its costs. The second is to make the welfare state gentler and less paternalistic towards the individual.

Liberals in favour of basic income often argue that the individual should have the personal freedom to choose how to spend the basic income. The argument is that the individual knows better how the basic income can be used for their own personal success, welfare and future perspectives. Therefore from the economic-liberal side of the debate, the general idea is that basic income should be provided by a more limited distribution of welfare. For example, by providing basic income only for those who are outside of the labour market or who lack other kind of sufficient income. Also, there can be an age limit, such as providing basic income only for individuals in the age span of 19 – 65 years.

 Another support for the economic-liberal basic income policy is original ideas of liberal economist Milton Friedman regarding the negative income tax (NIT). The primary purpose is that a person without income or earning much less than the average salary would be able to receive payments in the form of subsidies from the taxation agency based on the scale the person`s income gets under the tax threshold.

Historically seen the idea of basic income has had its supporters among liberal thinkers. One prominent thinker who supported the purpose of such income was Friedrich Hayek. As a classical liberal, he was against the existence of the welfare state. However, he argued that an individual should be guaranteed a basic income if for example, being left out from the labour market. For Hayek, the primary assignment of the basic income was to deal with and correct the ”imperfections” of the free market economy.

According to Hayek, the basic income could function as a protective floor to hinder the individual from falling down into poverty. For him, this was a preferable method for making things right in the free market economy where the government could provide support for the individual in a difficult socio-economic situation.  A classical liberal argument can, therefore, be presented in short as the argument that every individual member of the society should be guaranteed freedom from poverty.

Similar ideas as Hayek’s are proposed by Matt Zwolinski, a bleeding-heart libertarian and philosophy professor in the USA.  He argues that a basic income would be an effective way to reduce the spending and the size of the federal government’s welfare, by cutting down the administration and giving money directly to individuals. Also, he means that basic income is compatible with original thoughts of the classical liberalism, meaning that the tax-funded necessary social protection can be provided.

Zwolinski’s argument is that society’s morals, rules and rights should be available to be exercised by everybody in the society as much as possible. A society based on free but complex social and economic interactions between individuals also leads to specific problems. By having citizens who are stressed and dissatisfied because of the issues as poverty, social exclusion and lack of confidence, the free and democratic society gets challenged by having the members not being able or willing to practice the morals, rules and rights of the society. The basic income can, therefore, ensure that a free and democratic society can function better since its imperfections can be corrected.

Another support for the economic-liberal basic income policy is original ideas of liberal economist Milton Friedman regarding the negative income tax (NIT). The primary purpose is that a person without income or earning much less than the average salary would be able to receive payments in the form of subsidies from the taxation agency based on the scale the person`s income gets under the tax threshold.

In contrast to the progressive taxation, the NIT is also part of the method where overall taxation would be lower and managed with the different percentage depending on the size of the taxpayer’s income. Friedman’s vision was that this would be a kind of win-win situation where the welfare state and its spending are being reduced while individual is more stimulated to take a low-paid jobs as well as getting protected from poverty.

Finally, there are also more social-liberal arguments for basic income based on positive rights. Civil rights activist Martin Luther King also advocated that a basic income should be given to every citizen, human and families in the USA. He argued that it was easier to erase poverty than to deal with its roots. Interesting fact is that during the same time period president Richard Nixon was also in favour of basic income policy which was called the family assistance plan and inspired by Friedman’s approach. For Martin Luther King, the basic income was a way for empowering the civil rights movement and also of reshaping the society into becoming more civic.

In Europe historically seen the idea of the welfare state was from the beginning, a conservative idea which can be traced to Bismarck’s Germany during the later period of the 19-the century. By, for example, providing guaranteed pensions and free schooling for all citizens it was a method of maintaining stability in the society. Many conservative politicians at the time were, for example, worried about the class-based struggle and protesting actions among the growing working class.

Today the idea of having more substantial or smaller welfare states is widely spread across the union, including the different models being implemented such as the Nordic and the continental model. For most of the citizens welfare is not a question of having or not having but a question about what kind of welfare policy should be exercised. The basic income idea has, therefore, a lot of potentials to become a modern welfare approach in future within the EU to have a more human-centric welfare policy rather than older versions of paternalistic and integrity infringing welfare states.

The post The liberal case for basic income first appeared on Opulens.

HUMAN RIGHTS. United Nations and the World Health Organization call for decriminalisation of all drug users and possession of drugs for personal use. In a joint statement on ending discrimination within health care settings, the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organisation (WHO) urges all countries to decriminalise the use of all drugs and the possession of all drugs for personal use.    

Decriminalisation of drug use and possession of drugs for personal use is not to be confused with legalisation and the regulated sales of drugs such as in countries and states that have legalised cannabis for personal use. With decriminalisation, the manufacturing and sale of a scheduled narcotic drug remain illegal for the public.

Since some countries’ repressive drug laws did not live up to international human rights and established public health evidence, there is a worldwide growing support from human rights organisations, public health groups, the medical and scientific community to decriminalise use and legalise drugs for personal use. As well as the UN:

“International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights.”

WHO have issued support and recommendations to decriminalise all drug users before. In a previous report regarding consolidated guidelines on HIV prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for key populations the recommendation regarding decriminalisation and ban on forced treatment on drug users was stated under the section Good practice recommendations concerning decriminalisation:

• Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalise injection and other use of drugs and, thereby, reduce incarceration.

• Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalise the use of clean needles and syringes (and that permit NSPs [needle and syringe programmes]) and that legalise OST [opioid substitution therapy] for opioid-dependent people.

• Countries should ban compulsory treatment for people who use and/or inject drugs.

Decriminalisation of all drug use and possession of drugs for personal use in order to reduce harm is not only supported by the United Nations and the World Health Organisation because it is a matter of human rights. It is supported worldwide because these discriminatory, draconian and punitive laws should have never been implemented in the first place.

Not living up to international human rights is breaking them. Furthermore, breaking international human rights is a crime. Who in their right mind supports crimes against humanity?

The post UN and the WHO call for decriminalisation of drugs first appeared on Opulens.

POLITICS. They are explicitly anti-left but represent a more significant threat to freedom than the left. The right-wing collectivists obsession with nation, ethnicity and political affiliation is threatening our whole free and pluralistic society. 

This article was originally published in Swedish by Svenska Dagbladet daily paper

As a political force, the centre-right Alliance for Sweden was established around a unity of certain values: belief in the market economy and the rule of law, and a social view that the individual has rights towards the state and is responsible for one’s own life. However, such an agenda has never been a vote-winner, but in general, the common ground around the values of entrepreneurship, trade and low taxation has been the putty that united both liberals and conservatives.

For a long time, the Alliance was able to mobilise by being an alternative to socialism and social democracy. Nevertheless, since the appearance of the Sweden Democrats (nationalists) in politics and especially since the December agreement, which was disappointing for many, a new political competition has arisen. Such development has been noticed in the debate about ideas.

For the last few years, especially on the Internet, we have witnessed a rise in ideas that can almost be labelled as a collectivist right. This political tide has only gathered a few genuine and consistent representatives in the debate, but the tendencies are still evident – the insistence on duty, adaptation and serving the nation while protection of the individual, tolerance and the markets are completely ignored or rejected.

The economist Deirdre McCloskey has in three books during the 2000s (the latest one is Bourgeois Equality – How ideas, not capital or institutions, enriched the world) described the bourgeois value-shift which she claims gradually brought us into the modern world, starting in the 18^th century in the Netherlands and Great Britain, and gave us democracy, freedom and wealth.

The collectivist right-wingers have quickly positioned themselves to defend everything from comprehensive welfare to aid programmes as long as they can remain critical of immigration. Demands are also being made to revoke citizenships and impose extra-judicial border controls in order to prohibit individuals from asking for help. In the long term, such demands are eroding support for individual freedom and rights, judicial functions and the rule of law. Such ideological positions are often made by individuals who are explicitly anti-left but who in reality pose a more significant threat to the values and political programmes of the Alliance than the left itself.

The economist Deirdre McCloskey has in three books during the 2000s (the latest one is Bourgeois Equality – How ideas, not capital or institutions, enriched the world) described the bourgeois value-shift which she claims gradually brought us into the modern world, starting in the 18^th century in the Netherlands and Great Britain, and gave us democracy, freedom and wealth.

It was this freedom and respect for each other that enabled ‘ordinary people’ to innovate and conduct business. Before that, both the aristocracy and peasantry valued their existence outside work above the diligence, professionalism and education that came to be the focus with regards to personal and spiritual development. Instead of enrichment through conquest and pillaging, mutually enriching commodity exchange became the way forward.

The polarisation around identity that is dominating the public discourse today is generally seen as ultimately going against the value-shift that McCloskey describes. Ethnicity and nationality have been added to identities such as class and gender. Among the Left, but also on the Right, identity is collective, not individual. It is static, not dynamic. It is not tied to individual merits or achievements but to obedience, loyalty and a willingness to conform. Victory for the own group, rather than well-functioning institutions for co-existence in peace and freedom with others, is the goal of the collective.

The imagined world view within the collectivist right reminds us of what the American political scientist Berry R Weingast has described as the ‘violence trap’, a way of thinking from feudal times which is still widespread in developing societies. It means that different groups are creating violence capital in order to enrich themselves and protect themselves from conquest, blackmail and theft. The indications of a society where violence and violence capital have become an essential factor are not only found in the more extreme rhetoric about being subjected to invasion, war and treason that some are preoccupied with, but also found in discussions around the nation, ethnicity and political affiliation defining the individual.

In what kind of society is belonging more significant than achievement? The answer: a society where people are feeling threatened and scared. The mobilisation around identity is a warning that society has lost its fundamental safety. This is self-destructive and has to be rectified. Identity politics and its divisions are not only a danger to the bourgeois but to our whole dynamic, prosperous, pluralistic and free society.

The post The Left is not the biggest threat against bourgeois values first appeared on Opulens.

Photo: The UNZ Review. Edited by Opulens. 

EXTREMISM. What did the head of FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, and the future leader of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell, have in common 1957? The answer is the magazine “The American Mercury”. Rockwell was employed by and published articles in the magazine, an important megaphone of the “alt-Right” of its time, led by the vivid anti-Semite Russell Maguire. The then head of FBI, J. Edgar Hoover wrote articles for the magazine.

In the USA of the 1950s, the far-right viewed atheists and socialists as they view Muslims and Islam today. “Atheistic immigration” was viewed as a threat to national security, atheists were vilified as potential Soviet agents, and were regarded as having “dangerous morals”, and being prone to child abuse, “free sex”, “homosexuality” and other things that were viewed as “un-American” and evil.

McCarthyism

You have all heard about McCarthyism. When the FBI and American authorities wanted to stop communism in the 1950s and in that process violated the most fundamental human rights in existence. In the name of “fighting for God and Liberty” hearings were arranged by the House Un-American Activities Committee“, where several artists and celebrities were attacked for being “unamerican”, “Marxists”, “communists”, or… Atheists. Like Frank Capra who directed the classic American Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life“. Back then FBI regarded it as atheistic and communist propaganda. Yes, atheism. If you read the hearings, you will see that communism and atheism were regarded as basically two sides of the same coin.

McCarthyism worked very similarly to the way that the alt-right, and islamophobia-industry functions today. To some degree, the enemies are still the same, but if the enemies back then were communists and atheists, and of course immigrants and for many also the liberals and the Jews, the enemies today are “cultural Marxists” and Muslims, and still of course, the immigrants and, for some, the liberals and the Jews.

The problem with McCarthyism was never that they were against communists, as the problem of the alt-right today is not that they oppose radical Islamism. Stalin or Mao were no nice guys! Communists butchered millions at the time. The problem was that the McCarthyists were ready to violate human rights in the attempt to crush communism and that they widened the definition of communism to groups and people that had nothing to do with totalitarianism, like socialists, like liberals, as well as immigrants and of course atheists.

Atheism

The propaganda of that time in the US declared that atheists lacked morals, since they did not have a God, and consequently they were evil. The best proof that atheism was evil was Communism. Furthermore, since communists were evil, that meant that atheists were evil too.

That might sound ridiculous for many of our time. Nevertheless, it is no different from the present-day islamophobia. All Muslims are regarded as inherently evil because Islam is regarded as evil because there are radical Islamists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda that CLAIM to be “real Muslims” and who butcher people just as atheists were regarded as evil because the communists were atheists and communists in Soviet and China butchered people.

Negative generalization. A group is judged by its worst representatives. The American Mercury is interesting to study in this sense. In 1956 the editor of the magazine, Russell Maguire, employed George Lincoln Rockwell as assistant. He would go on to found the American Nazi Party in 1959 but was already at that time, 1956-1957, a Nazi. He wrote three articles for the magazine in 1957.

That same year the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, also wrote for the magazine. The title of the article by J Edgar Hoover, then director of the FBI, in December 1957 was “God and Country or Communism”. In it he wrote about the atheists (here: materialists):

“These materialists deny the existence of God. They deny the existence of the soul, of immortality, and values derived from unchanging moral principles. Reality, the materialists maintain, consists only of matter. These people, as I stated, are not communists; yet they are preparing mental soil for the seeds of communism. Their pernicious doctrine of materialism, fed to young Americans as something new and modern, readies the minds of our youth to accept the immoral, atheistic system of thought we know as communism.”

As head of FBI Hoover was the head of the fight against “un-American activities”. In the hearings about “Un-American activities,” many speakers made the point that atheism in many regards was MORE evil than communism, since it was the “fundament of communism”.

If you read the propaganda of the alt-right of the time, like The American Mercury, or read the testimonies in the House Un-American Activities Committee, you will see that even immigration was vilified. After the Hungarian uprising in 1956, about 4000 Hungarian refugees came to the USA. They were all regarded as potential communists and thereby a threat. They were probably all atheists, therefore communists in disguise, therefore evil, it was claimed.

The enemy –  the Zionist!

The American Mercury went a few steps further and claimed that the communists and atheists were a part of a Zionist conspiracy against humankind, led by influential Jews like the Rothschilds.

If J. Edgar Hoover shared this antisemitic worldview, I do not know. Nevertheless, as head of the FBI at the time he MUST have known what the magazine stood for. The American Mercury is “the single most important anti-Semitic publication at present”, ADL, The American Anti-Defamation League, wrote in 1958. Why? Because they spread myths about Jewish conspiracies.

Russell Maguire of the American Mercury, wrote articles about this “conspiracy“. There is one article in January 1959 article about that linked this conspiracy to atheism. The Zionists would establish an atheistic world government, led by the Rothschilds, in Jerusalem, the editorial claimed.

“The great Conspiracy aims at establishing in Jerusalem a one-world super-government to rule over a confused and DISINTEGRATED humanity… National spirit, religious spirit, family life, private property and personal initiative are to be overthrown.”

That is what J. Edgar Hoover and the Nazi Lincoln Rockwell had in common. One may wonder what on earth the leaders of the US at that time thought when even the head of the FBI wrote articles in magazines that promoted a Nazi worldview.

There is a saying that you might have heard, that “those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” Seen in retrospect, we were all lucky that the USA survived. However, the spirit of McCarthyism is still alive, although with a slightly different image of the “enemy” than back then. Moreover, it is up to us to step up and stop it!

The post When the head of the FBI wrote articles in a Nazi-magazine first appeared on Opulens.

IDENTIFICATION. Around the world, almost every fifth human lacks a legal identification document. Lacking official identification means worse possibilities for the individual’s economic and social development, something that primarily is harder when it comes to women and children. This is one reason why the UN 2030 Agenda is essential. With its 17 goals, also when it comes to issues of human identification. The agenda offers opportunities where none human in the future should be illegal or stateless.

Today, one of the most infringed human rights is the right to have and change nationality (citizenship). After the Millennium goals of the 2000’s, the next step regarding global development and governance is the UN:s Agenda 2030 based on the sustainable development goals — SDG:s. The SDG number 16 is about peace, justice and institutions. Also, it takes up topics regarding migration and identification. Part of the goal is that every human should have access to a legal ID in the form of ID-documents and constitutional rights.

One can wonder why such goals are required today? In principle, all UN member states have access to modern bureaucratic systems. However, regardless of all advanced technology as biometric passports and electronic confirmation systems, enormous challenges are remaining when it comes to human identification. The fact is that we are living in a world there around 1,5 billion individuals, or almost every fifth human on our planet lacks a valid ID for vital needs.

Lack of ID is especially making it harder for women and girls as in West Africa, in countries as Liberia and Ivory Coast, and in refugees camps. One reason why women, more often than men, face tough life situations is that women more often lack ID cards, proof of birth and marriage certificates. The case is often even harder in refugee camps when women can require access to financial donations, education and primary health care.

According to the World Bank, the lack of ID-documentation makes it harder for women to exercise their potential and opportunities in everyday life. Such situations when women are lacking ID-documentation makes it also harder for civic participation. Levels of gender equality in global sense are going to be lower as long as less number of women, comparing to the number of men, can practice their relations with public institutions, to practice their social rights and conduct economic self-development.

At the same time, there are efficient solutions in the forms of digital identification. One example is the Aadhaar card in India which resulted in the majority of India’s population, even the poorest have, have more comfortable possibilities to identify themselves. The Aadhaar card is based on biometric identifying with the help of microchips containing the information about the individual.

A similar system that was introduced in the neighbouring country of Pakistan resulted in 40 million women being able to give new ID-documentations at the start of the 2010s. Beside more natural processes with cash transfers and conducting relations with public institutions, it also led to more feelings of self-determination and self-confidence among many women that before never or more seldom took the opportunity vote and to organise projects.

Digital ID:s have also been proven as efficient to reduce fraud and abuse of power, and also to make it easier for democratic participation and inclusion.

In Estonia, all citizens have the Internet as a civic right. It means that the state has to provide all citizens with access to the Internet, as via public libraries, and where all citizens can e-vote (electronically) in elections.

In Nigeria, around 4300 thousand “ghost workers” disappeared from the public bureaucracy after the biometric ID-system was introduced and replace the earlier paper-based methods.

Also, such development is seen by the World Bank as good from the climate-friendly perspective such digital IDs lead to reduced usage of paper and working intensity.

A next important step in identity development has its potential in usage of the Self-Sovereign Identity or SSI. One main difference compared to the publicly issued identification, as by the state governments, is that SSI is based on the individual as a sovereign actor.

SSI is based on the blockchain function for transactions where the information is stored in a “block” that can be connected in several blocks and thereby produce a blockchain. During transition, the blocks are interacting and supporting each others security regarding the password combinations, which makes the system more secure from hacking and attacks. Also, the blockchain makes it easier for direct interactions between the individuals because a blockchain system does not demand “middle hands” and centralised based driven by private or public institutions like banks and ministries.

An essential thought behind the SSI is that the induvial does not have to hold different IDs, ass passports and health cards, for different occasions. Thanks to the SSI technology, all physical passport systems could be replaced by such digital solutions.

Last but not least, the main powerfulness and vitality of the SSI idea is that every individual has sovereignty and owns its identification. While a global citizenship in judicial meaning is still not existing, it could be established in the future on human’s fundamental freedoms, rights and sovereignty. At least, via global SSI, not human would need to be stateless or undocumented. If every induvial could own identification in a global sense, it would also make it easier for humans to migrate for self-development or potation in a more free and secure way.

The post Self-Sovereign Identity as global citizenship first appeared on Opulens.

WORLD. According to many studies, the 2010s was the most prosperous decade in global history. Globalisation, often defined as higher levels of economic and technological flows, has despite its problems resulted in rapid advancement of human progress. Levels of extreme poverty, illiteracy and mortality have all been reduced greatly. Despite backlashes often labelled as ‘Brexit and Trump’ there are many reasons to remain optimistic and advocate for a brighter future. This is one of the messages by American Enterprise affiliated scholar Dalibor Rohac in his recent book ‘In Defense of Globalism’.

In Defense of Globalism 

Dalibor Rohac

Rowman & Littlefield

As a moderate intellectual Dalibor Rohac gives an important contribution to contemporary debate filled with higher degree of polarisation and political tribalism where the term globalism often is regarded as synonymous with elitism and technocracy. The author presents several vital points on how globalism, mainly as an idea based on the importance of international institutions and polycentric governance, benefits people across the world regardless of their social status. One can describe the book as ‘Globalism for dummies’, providing basic information about the meaning and history of governance models above the sovereign state levels.

One of the main points in the book is that ideas of international, supranational and global institutional setups are deeply rooted in the development of free and democratic societies. Therefore, it is evident among other reasons why EU countries as Sweden and Germany or American states as California and Texas are among the most globalised parts of the planet. Dealing with global problems and challenges demands the common institutions. Rohac argues that the current nationalist and populist movements are doomed to fail because of their inability to provide meaningful answers to problems connected to climate change, economy and migration.

The book is written for a wider public, but it focuses its messages particularly to actors on the political right, i.e. conservatives, liberals and libertarians. In recent years, many former right-wing supporters of globalisation have transformed into anti-globalists and ‘sovereigntists’. A development manifested in the rise of nationalist conservatives and right-wing collectivists, and the emergence of protectionists policies in the USA.

In addition to ideological support for globalism, the book also provides vital arguments in favour of European patriotism as opposed to state-centric and nationalist ideas regarding governance, democracy and identification.

According to Rohac, shared institutions like those in Europe are vital to secure the market economy, individual freedom and the rule of law. Throughout his book, Rohac encourages both historical reflections, such as references to the Hanseatic League and Holy Roman Empire, as well as future-oriented rethinking by emphasising several critical points when it comes to pooling sovereignty and shaping mandates of international institutions. As Rohac points out, in order to maintain social trust and legitimacy, the institutions which are above the national level must be more limited and focused on their scope. The risk is otherwise that social trust will deteriorate, as in the case of the International Monetary Fund which today undertakes tasks which it was not initially intended to perform.

Rohac offers a middle way between those ideas and actors who believe in the myth of ‘free sovereign nations’ and those who believe in utopias of a unitary world government. Before reading the book, I was expecting a chapter offering new and radical solutions with more detailed proposals for institutional development at a global level, such as the creation of a worldwide police force or a climate ministry. No such ideas are to be found, but the author is clear and maintains his agenda on providing support for the current institutional frameworks and points out what must be changed, improved and reformed.

The book’s most powerful message is that the nation-state is not the final point of social development. Therefore, the continuous institutional diversity from local to global level is a key to a brighter future and prosperity for our human civilisation.

The post Globalism for Dummies – the case for polycentric governance first appeared on Opulens.

DIGNITY. The principle of human security means also accepting the fact that no human is a single story or has only one main identity but that all of us have a right to life, freedom and security as individuals. Therefore, public institutions as governments must always be implementing universal values like freedom and equality. Especially when it comes to migration and movement.

Last week the Indian federal government, run by the right-wing nationalist BJP-party, decided to introduce a new bill under the name of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) after it passed in both lower and upper houses of the parliament.  The new act is partly an update of the 1955 citizenship law with regards to aspects such as legal and illegal migration, refugee status and naturalisation policy. The new bill mostly affects those individuals who came to India before December 2014.

One of the main arguments of the BJP-government is that CAA is important in order to protect the minorities who have been persecuted mostly on the basis of faith. The core of CAA is that it applies to Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and others who are not Muslims from India’s neighbouring countries Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. If individuals from these religious groups can prove that they originate from one of the three eligible countries, they can become Indian citizens via a fast-tracked system.

Before and after its implementation, CAA has been criticised for being discriminatory against Muslims. Various demonstrations have taken place in states like Assam and West Bengal and big cities such as Delhi and Hyderabad. The UN also made statements of CAA being discriminatory and regrettable. Also, during the first judicial hearing on petitions challenging the CAA, India’s Supreme Court declined to postpone or prevent the controversial law. Nevertheless, the court also asked the federal government to file its response to the petitions stating that CAA violates India’s constitution.

CAA can also be seen as an example of what is democratically possible and legitimate by popular demands and public institutions. According to the current UN Charter of Human Rights, which can be seen as ‘international constitutionalism’, every individual has a human right to nationality (citizenship). We also have rights to emigrate (leave a country) and to immigrate (enter a country) during circumstances such as wars and catastrophes. However, the possibility for a person to move from point A to point B always depends on the current system of sovereignty where sovereign states are the primary actors.

As humans, we still do not enjoy the right to move freely across countries and regions, nor do we have any right to citizenship in universal terms –  no right to global citizenship, so to speak. Partly because we still have not reached a more advanced and higher levels of consciousness and solidarity with regards to identification, governance and democracy. In principle, humans have rights, but the governments have sovereignty in the first place, especially regarding discussions about humanitarian immigration, rights of migrants and refugees, policies for integration and naturalisation.

In his latest book, the historian Yuval Noah Harari is discussing the recent debates around immigration, especially from European experiences. One of Harari’s main points is that ‘both sides’, pro- and anti-immigration camps,  often have legitimate arguments and proposals. Furthermore, what is legit is connected to principles of democracy and sovereignty, which is still mainly a national matter, regardless of one’s moral views. As Harari writes:

“If a country like Israel wants to allow in only Jews, and a country like Poland agrees to absorb Middle Eastern refugees on condition that they are Christians, this may seem distasteful, but it is perfectly within the rights of the Israeli or Polish voters”.

And to make the situation more complex, there is a long of history of discussions about immigration, citizenship and identification connected to CAA. For example, many Assamese-speaking people believe that they will become a minority because of illegal immigration. Many Muslims in India are angry with the law because they think it is discriminatory. Moreover, many Bengali-speaking Hindus were upset because of views that the earlier proposed bill would not provide them with enough security due to older laws and governing practices as National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Many politicians and political movements in Europe, America and Asia are doing the opposite by proposing or implementing xenophobic and racist policies, barbed wire and walls, fear-mongering and nostalgic fantasies. CAA is now part of that development. But making discriminatory laws in order to intentionally or unofficially promote a nationalist, xenophobic or reactionary agenda is also preventing important solutions that human civilisation needs for the future.

All such emotions and expressions are parts of democratic conversation. Similarly, as with the examples of Israel and Poland, voters in India have the same theoretical and practical ability to support a bill like CAA. Even if the current government’s real ambitions are Hindu-nationalist identity politics. In order to make it harder or impossible for Muslims to immigrate to India or to become Indian citizens.

Therefore, it is important to differentiate between the meaning of legitimate and rightful. Everything legitimate regarding democracy and governance is not automatically morally right, civilised or humane. One of the main problems with CAA is that it does not follow the principle of equality (judicial) with regards to the principle of equal treatment of an individual when dealing with public institutions.

If the current Indian government really wants to help all persecuted individuals, their religion or other identification should not matter. A modern government should always have the assignment to protect the human security of every individual who is residing or located on its territory. Also, the government could decentralise and federalise decision-making to local levels, such as cities, when it comes to humanitarian immigration and adaptation programmes for refugees.

Another important criticism is that CAA is not following the ‘Idea of India’ with regards to secularism, non-discrimination and pluralism. Because indirectly, CAA is sending signals in style that Islam is equal to extremism and terrorism. Thereby leading to unnecessary polarisation and conflicts in Indian society.

Many politicians and political movements in Europe, America and Asia are doing the opposite by proposing or implementing xenophobic and racist policies, barbed wire and walls, fear-mongering and nostalgic fantasies. CAA is now part of that development. But making discriminatory laws in order to intentionally or unofficially promote a nationalist, xenophobic or reactionary agenda is also preventing important solutions that human civilisation needs for the future.

Problems and challenges regarding migration are global and demand a global solution. Europe is already having similar problems to America called the “tough border complex” – more guards and obstacles equals more attempts of illegal and dangerous crossings. Protesting against poor and discriminatory laws like CAA is important in standing up for constitutional patriotism and pluralism, but it is even more important to fight for long-term institutional changes.

Administrative borders are always going to exist as long as there are cities, regions and countries or other units. Since we are soon entering the 2020s, we should be able to behave more civilised than our ancestors. One of the main questions for the 21^st century is how to make it easier for individuals to be able to move around in order to conduct self-development and legal activities freely. Because the best way to solve problems around illegal migration is through more legal migration.

Free and safe migration, as well as respect for human security and dignity, is the most optimal and civilised path forward when it comes to the current situation regarding the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Because what binds humans together is that we do not choose our places of birth and we should be able to choose our place of living-hood on Earth.

The post Not everything legitimate is good first appeared on Opulens.

HUMAN RIGHTS. Citizens of the world, or should I say, individuals, the spotlight is once again on Sweden’s judicial system. A long-time has passed since prosecutors in Sweden started a preliminary investigation, that later was referred to as the Julian Assange case. To this day it continues to haunt Swedish authorities, even after discontinuing the case against the publisher.

Currently, Assange is being detained in a state-run prison in south-east London, but there are also privately owned prisons in England. One should keep in mind that a different way is possible: in Sweden, for example, no prison-industrial complex exists, no artificial market has been created there. Yet.

The judicial process was once regarded highly in the United Kingdom, but today the justice and prison services might very well be deteriorating if the neoliberal state can lock away a journalist, by pursuing a constructed narrative and makeup charges as they go along.

After all, the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote that the degree of civilisation in a society could be judged by entering its prisons. So, what does the inside of prisons look like in various countries? The common image of a confinement is a dirty and foul box, maybe not as horrible as the US creation and hellhole, Guantanamo Bay, but similarly dark.

For a different counterpart, one envisions Sweden and what a nomad’s minimalistic deluxe hotel room might look like. This is the product of a strong welfare state, thus it presents the standard of a decent motel, clean facilities with TV sets and libraries. When Saddam Hussein in 2004 requested to serve his prison sentence in this Nordic country, maybe it was not just a coincidence of safety measures.

Furthermore, in Norway, the mass murderer and terrorist Anders Behring Breivik is serving a life sentence. Breivik has since been able to sue the state for not complying with the European Declaration of Human Rights. If we embark on measuring like Dostoyevsky suggested, the Norwegian way is a sign of a great civilisation, one that lets an incarcerated human preserve the right to justice.

In the UK contrarily, Julian Assange might be subjected to debilitating drug treatments, according to Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. These treatments have caused him not to be able to follow his court hearings, Craig Murray, a good friend of Assange, wrote after attending the proceedings.

A different way should always be envisioned. Some additional information that is relevant to the matter is that in Sweden a prison is not simply called that, but always referred to as “kriminalvården”. One could translate it as a “correctional facility” but more accurately, it is a rehabilitation centre for criminals. The name hints of a system built on the idea of humanism and its inmates preserve some form of human dignity and are not labelled merely as prisoners but will instead receive treatment and not be completely stripped of their rights while serving their time.

Societies that are deteriorating by the standard of Dostoevsky’s measure are many, and one cannot help but think of Turkey after the coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he ordered thousands to be imprisoned. It cannot be forgotten. These humans Erdogan said, had committed treason and were thrown into overcrowded prison cells. Photos later emerged showing men lying in pits, naked on top of each other and Amnesty reported on starved and tortured captives.

The Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad after the American invasion of Iraq is another example that comes to mind. It was in this location on the world map, once called Mesopotamia, that human civilisation developed and advanced. Sadly, it was also here, in modern times, that man became animal.

Wikileaks has revealed in-depth, the machinery of American imperialism and how this form of deep state governance works. Moreover, it drops bombs, takes captives and creates dungeons, wherever it sees fit.

In Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in the United Kingdom, Julian Assange might at this moment be contemplating from within his isolation cell, what type of society would imprison someone who delivers the truth to people.

The post From within Julian’s cell, one can understand society first appeared on Opulens.

CLIMATE. According to a new UN-report, we are heading for an increase in the earth’s average temperature by 3.7 degrees. This is far from the targets set in the Paris Agreement: to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. According to the report, global emissions need to decline rapidly in the next decade to reach the targets.

To reach the 1.5-degree target emissions need to decrease by 7.6% annually. To reach the 2-degree target emissions need to decrease by 2.7% a year. To put these figures into perspective, global emissions have increased by an average of 1.5% per year over the past decade, according to the report. Since the beginning of the 1990s, when climate change first began to be discussed in the UN context, global emissions have increased by 70%. Given the severity of the climate crisis, now and in the future, those figures are truly terrifying.

The key takeaway from the report is that current policies are highly insufficient to reach the Paris Agreement and to halt global warming. The intended contributions by different countries towards the Paris Agreement are also insufficient. According to the report, the intended contributions need to be increased by 3 to 5 times. Countries large and small talk big about climate change but talk is cheap. Making an ambitious commitment and announcing it on the world stage is one thing, but living up to that commitment is a different thing altogether.

One example of this is Sweden. Sweden is regarded as an environmental pioneer and protecting the environment is very much in the self-image of Swedes. For some years now, there has been growing public awareness and mobilisation on climate change. The issue is visible almost everywhere in public life. Policy-wise, seven of the eight political parties in parliament support a broad framework on the long-term orientation of climate policy in Sweden.

The framework included a so-called ‘Climate Law’ and a long-term target that by the year 2045, Sweden is to become ‘net zero’ when it comes to emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In concrete terms, emissions from Sweden should be at least 85% lower in 2045 than in 1990. The Swedish government is positioning the country to become one of the world’s first fossil-free welfare societies.

Government representatives as well as representatives from other political parties, policy elites, companies and others ascribe to the notion that Sweden will be better off making a transition to a ‘net zero’ economy and that this is an opportunity for Sweden to increase its competitiveness on the world stage. This raised the question of how things are going. Is Sweden on track to reach its target of becoming ‘net zero’ by 2045?

The simple answer is: far from it. Emissions from Sweden are not decreasing at the necessary rate. Emissions appear to be increasing slightly. Nonetheless, reaching the 2045 target requires Sweden to decrease emissions by a rate of 5-8% a year and the policies to achieve that are absent, according to an independent analysis.

In Sweden, the Green Party is now part of a Social Democrat-led minority government for a second consecutive term. This term the government leans on active support from the Liberal Party and Center Party and passive support from the Left Party in order to pass its budget in parliament. In return for the active support from the Liberal Party and Center Party, the government is implementing a centre-right agenda.

When it comes to climate policy, the Greens argue that they have been an instrumental force in getting the slow-moving Social Democrats to adopt any climate policy. They also argue that they were the ones that introduced the climate issue to the other parties in parliament and that those parties have since adopted their own set of climate policies due to a gradual shift in public opinion and interest in the issue.

When the Greens presented the budget they had negotiated with the Social Democrats, Center Party and Liberal Party, they framed it as a historical moment, the largest environment and climate budget in Sweden’s history. However, the budget and the policy measures are far from sufficient to achieve the transition the Greens talk about. Of course, there is a limit to how much the Greens can be blamed for the Social Democrats and the other active support parties not living up their rhetoric on this issue, but criticism is legitimate for various reasons, not least Sweden’s posturing on climate internationally.

To mention a few deficiencies, the government is, on the one hand, preparing a tax on plastic bags but the other hand was turning a blind eye to a state authority providing insurance for export deals involving coal extraction worth 347 million SEK. Between 2014 and 2018, during the first term in government for the Greens, the same state authority provided insurance for projects linked to fossil fuels to a value of 5.8 billion SEK. Meanwhile, our state pension funds continue to invest billions in the world’s largest fossil fuel companies, despite new rules to end this practice.

Again Sweden’s green positioning does not hold up to scrutiny. To be completely clear, the political right in Sweden is no better, but the political left also has to step up its game and adopt a more coherent green agenda. Leaving Sweden aside, I find very little encouragement in the global community.

There is a tremendous amount of insight but policymakers, especially from key economies, are not motivated to make the changes necessary to address the issue substantively. There can be no other conclusion in my opinion, and social movements like the school strikers and Extinction Rebellion echo this fact. However, there is some encouragement to be found in the EU.

A week ago, partly as a signal to the current Climate Summit in Madrid, the European Parliament voted to declare a climate emergency. It remains to be seen if climate policies to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees will follow, but the newly appointed head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has, at least in rhetoric, put climate action at the top of her agenda. There are sceptics, but the jury is still out. Also, the long-term budget of the EU puts the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in focus.

The commission has proposed a target of 25% of EU expenditure contributing to climate objectives. Nonetheless, what can be counted as ‘contributing to climate objectives’ is debatable. Still, there is a push from the EU for supporting emerging clean energy technologies, which is necessary. States and local governments in the US are defying the Trump administration and committing to ambitious climate targets. The state of California is fighting tooth and nail with the federal government to be able to set its own more ambitious vehicle emissions standards.

Hope can also be found in the Democratic Party presidential primaries. By now, it is essential for candidates wishing to take on Trump to have a comprehensive climate policy agenda. The Green New Deal, popularised by congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and later adopted by independent candidate Bernie Sanders, is now part of the everyday political conversation in the US.

Finally, we have the British Labour election manifesto, which is widely described as the most radical manifesto presented in a Western country in decades. The manifesto is filled with radical policy proposals to curb climate change and transform the British economy, a sort of British Green New Deal. We are at a point of no return. Due to the severity of the crisis, the days of caution are over. Radical policies are necessary. Let us move ahead. Labour can show the way.

The post The days of caution are over- the climate crisis requires radical policies first appeared on Opulens.

Photograph: Pixabay.com. Edited by Opulens.

MILITARISM. The Chilean government raised the subway ticket price by 30 pesos. On Thursday morning, October 17, small groups of students evaded paying for their tickets, skipping the controls in some subway stations. I took the Santiago subway. There was a tense but calm atmosphere. The calm before the storm. Closed doors. Guards and police were intimidating the students all over.

On the morning of Friday, October 18, I travelled to Pichilemu, a charming seaside resort on the Pacific coast 250 kilometres from Santiago, to participate in a Book Fair. The day was sunny in Pichilemu. Social networks informed that people were continuing to protest in Santiago. People did not accept government intimidation. Chaos broke out. The situation worsened, and violence took to the streets of the Chilean capital, with burning of various metro and bus stations, looting of supermarkets and attacks on public buildings.

A photo increased the discontent. The photo was of President Piñera eating pizza at a restaurant in Vitacura, to celebrate the birthday of one of his grandchildren. His grandfather role was more important than his role as president. A single photo increased people’s anger. The next day, on Saturday the 19^th, President Piñera rescinded the price increase on subway tickets. Too late. The protests did not stop. Piñera declared a state of emergency. He limited some civil rights. He imposed a curfew and deployed the military to the streets.

In the airport, flights were stopped, and hundreds of passengers were stranded. That Saturday, I saw Pichilemu neighbours quickly, organized a protest march. At 7 pm, a huge number of people gathered in a square. They started marching by banging on pans. I joined the march with other writers. Thousands hitting pans. “Piñera, listen, go to hell!” The march stopped in front of the cultural centre, at the place where the book fair was held. The same sort of energy and atmosphere made the rounds of almost every city in Chile. People rebelled spontaneously.

While we were having dinner, we heard and saw on social networks that the people of Santiago challenged the curfew there. Result – eleven dead individuals. The Government indicated that 716 people were being detained, 241 of them for not respecting the decree that prohibited nighttime traffic. Sunday was also sunny in the coastal town of Pichilemu. We ate breakfast sitting by the pleasant sunny sea, with other artists and writers. We commented on what was happening in Chile.

The demonstrations continued in different places in Chile, and the government’s misconduct was absolute. Piñera did not appear, and rumours of all kinds were in the air. We returned to Santiago. We had to arrive early as the government had moved up the curfew in Santiago to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday. The trip was quiet with little traffic. We heard on the radio about more protests in Santiago.

We went to eat some tasty shrimp empanadas with cheese in the town of Pomaire. A town known for its handicrafts. Normally the town of Pomaire is full of tourists. Now we were alone in the restaurant. Already in Santiago, on Sunday night, I could see President Piñera appearing on TV. Emaciated. He said a phrase that made the situation worse again. “We are at war”.

Piñera was reckless. I was struck by Piñera’s lack of restraint.  When it was more necessary to calm down and show sanity, Piñera spoke of war. He poured gasoline on the fire. I felt that he was out of control – a disgraceful president who does not know how to govern. His words have made everything worse.  Until those days Piñera ruled Chile based on monitoring opinion surveys. The man was convinced that surveys were the best way to rule.

In just three days, the social blowout proved its political ineffectiveness. He showed his arrogance — a man who does not know how to govern. There was accumulated anger. Chile is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Neoliberal politics sold everything into private hands: water, health, education. The sea is private, and the roads are private. Wages and pensions – miserable.

In Pichilemu, a young writer told me that her mother called her on her cell phone and asked her to take care of herself. “Mom, do not worry. I’ll be fine”. And then her mother cried on the phone. Her mother remembered the time of the Pinochet dictatorship when she was young. She knows how things used to be. Chilean trauma, like a ghastly ghost, reappears as if it were a horror movie.

More than 44 days have passed. Things have gotten worse day by day. The paralyzed government continues to intensify the repression. Several international human rights organizations have publicly denounced human rights abuses. There have been several cases of people linked to the social movement who have turned up dead in suspicious circumstances.

The billionaire Piñera is an egocentric man. Sitting on top of his millions of dollars, he lives today in a moral vacuum.  Piñera has led a country to a terrible crossroads.

The post PIÑERA LEADS CHILE TO A DISASTER first appeared on Opulens.

CLIMATE. Large scale protests are taking place around the world, from Hong Kong and Chile to Sudan, Lebanon and Barcelona. We might be experiencing a different global new age of echoing common cause. People, especially young generations, have felt anger and a strong inner urge to revolt against the current status quo, even before knowing what shape a revolution might crystallise in.

Protesters are fuming in accord, against various common denominators. Bearing this in mind, we cannot compare Sudan’s and Hong Kong’s enduring uprisings against oppressive regimes and the actions undertaken by protesters there to achieve desired change to the ones recently expressed by Extinction Rebellion (XR).

XR’s protests have gained remarkable speed and size over the past year, spreading information across digital channels as fast as people could click on the share button, with climate change messaging being adopted as a mainstream language. Week-long occupations of entire streets, bridges and junctions in a city dependent on public transport is well enough when it is coordinated with public authorities, as peaceful protests are an expression of an inherent democratic right.

However, standing on the roof of trains and planes becomes a problem because it is forcefully stopping hard-working commuters from getting home or to work when an alternative route is not the best option. This type of boycott can only lead to loss of support for the cause and bring upon severe opprobrium. XR’s senior leaders have admitted that targeting London’s public transport ”was the wrong thing to do”. This action was followed by many people abandoning the cause.

After being heavily condemned by the public, XR is now having to rethink their strategy while dealing with rogue activists much like the split moments in Life of Brian. The danger of the latest stunts might work against the cause and bring upon its demise, as well as much worse – criminalising these type of protests. XR should be focusing on working closely with public institutions and high-level stakeholders and take a page out of Greta Thunberg’s action book, regarded by many as the de facto leader of the global climate change movement.

XR have been harshly denounced for its fetishisation of mass arrest, and it has been said that many are relying on the precedent of white privilege when it comes to police treatment, with the overwhelming majority of activists being white. This approach is certainly not an option for everyone, as people being disheartened at the threat of jail.

A silver lining is that XR has successfully contributed to adding the climate crisis on the political agenda and turn XR policies into mainstream topics. Nonetheless, having Parliament declaring a ”climate emergency” does not compel the Government to act. Therefore it will have no immediate effect.

In general, people do not contest that according to the latest climate figures, global greenhouse gas emissions are higher than ever before. And as humankind, we will be at the brink of irreparable damage to our planet if we do not take charge, almost 30 years after the UN Climate Change Convention focusing on reducing CO2 emissions. We get it! It is not that we do not care. However, we need to change the way we speak about climate change.

Climate change is a significant problem, and we are not going to solve it if the governments, industry and people don’ take action. However, doomsday trips are not going to motivate most people to act. What we should ask ourselves is: what types of messages could inspire people to modify their behaviour?

Behavioural science should provide some answers. People’s motivation comes from understanding the bigger picture, how it all fits, what are the consequences on the specific environment they live in, starting from their building, street, neighbourhood, area, city etc. It can be influenced via positive take action messages.

Humans need to see the social impact, feel social pressure, and how they can act meaningfully, making simple changes. Clear and straightforward discourse can bring upon more change than shouting apocalyptic scenarios and no specific actions to follow.

The post Extinction Rebellion (XR): Better actions for large scale transformation first appeared on Opulens.