Because You Never Asked

(This essay was written somewhere around '96-'97)

     Certain recurring themes have started to become evident in this mass of dubious philosophical patter. One such concept that seems to have taken root in a socio-economic sense is the substitution of more "quality time" in place of more production (see essays "The Economy", "Privatizations", as well as much of the philosophical tenor of the work in general). Obviously, this concept is still snoozing away in the bullpen while the "established order" (see essay "The Established Order") doggedly sticks with its own pitcher, which is more concerned with working us into a neurotic frazzle producing more video games, than in giving us more "quality time".

     For people like myself, who have cracked the code and see the lunatic reality of the prevailing Occidental mindset, the broad picture can only be seen with pessimism. The Thatcher-Clinton-free-market-cowboy-adventurers are currently a gang of headless chickens running loose in the world without any obvious predators to keep them in check. There is very little to stop them from infesting our minds with their Fox Networks, their CNN's, and their horrifying World Wrestling Federation bluster. The future history of the planet will be written in our ability to see or not to see the lunacy of this crass, ass scratching, silicone-boobed blueprint for society.

     "To see or not to see", that is the question.

     One of the most repetitive mantras of the modern politician's chant is the idea that he or she will provide more jobs if elected. This theme has all the unwavering insistence of an unattended broken record, and goes completely unchallenged in today's political arena.

     It's a thankless job, but someone has got to do it.

     If this writer were to run for office, one of the principle aspects of his platform would be to promise fewer jobs. "And yes, ladies and gentlemen, as sure as I am standing here before you, if you give me your support I promise you less jobs and less employment. Yes, my friends, vote for me and we will have no economic growth, a diminishing tax base and less money to build highways with. This is my promise to you!"

     Undoubtedly, this would get me elected to nothing more than the nearest mental ward, but that's why I'm writing this book and not running for office . as well as the fact that I don't have the wardrobe necessary to be some multi-national's mouthpiece. I can sit here naked and covered in lice and nobody gives a damn, which is one of the great advantages a writer has over a politician.

     In any event, one of the most persistent news stories rooting itself into the last ten years of media output has been the unrelenting high level of unemployment that steadfastly clings to the European Community's economic profile like dog droppings on a rippled soled shoe. Any number of governments, operating within the stingy range of economic choices available to western politicians, have taken their swings at this unemployment "problem", all to no avail, the figures continuing to hover around the 10% mark.

     For the economic game currently being imposed on the world by the Thatcher-Clinton cowboys, this figure is considered way too high, placing too great a burden on the State's safety net in trying to care for all these out-of-workers. For the Armani neck tie cellular phone VIP's, such unemployment figures are a deep cut over the eye that threatens to stop the fight. These workers must be producing and earning a decent enough wage to live on the edge of their wives' credit card whims in pursuit of all the whoopee cushion crap the free marketeer cowboys are selling them. But for someone like myself, who challenges this system's way of developing and distributing the world's resources, this high unemployment scenario might be looked upon as a hopeful sign, because it helps make my point about more "quality time" as opposed to more production. Allow me to explain:

     When we talk about the European Community, we are really talking about Western Europe, one of the most commercially-technologically developed areas of the world. It's quite possible that the average standard of living (whatever that means) in this part of the world is slightly lower than that in the United States, but it is also true, in spite of the fact that its economy is supposedly not performing as well as the American model, that it is far less burdened with the substantial amounts of hard core poverty that traditionally exists in the United States. This is another way of saying that the impressive wealth that exists there is more evenly distributed. In Western Europe, notwithstanding the fact that more than 10% of the work force is not producing or servicing anything, there is a material excess of everything necessary to live comfortably, even by Thatcher-Clinton cowboy standards. There is more than enough food, more than enough clothing, an ample supply of decent housing, an outstanding infrastructure of transport services, of power and plumbing grids, excellent educational systems, a high-tech network of communications and information services, splendid recreational and cultural facilities . in other words, a very high percentage of the hundreds of millions of people living there, at least in a material sense, are getting what they need. Upon pondering this generally prosperous situation, one might ask, "What is so terrible about this 'high' rate of unemployment?"

     The current economic situation in the European Community is living proof that under the rules of the monolithic Dow Jones mafia, our work serves business more than it serves people. It is only under the tyrannical rule of an economic system where Nike "is desperately fighting to put its logo on the jerseys of the All-Himalayan Elephant Racing Team" (see essay "The Established Order"), that a comfortable state of material well being provided with less and less effort could be considered a negative thing.

     "Ladies and gentlemen, we need less jobs! Less work! More unemployment ."

     Excuse me, that is not the proper way to express my point. We don't need more unemployment. What I am proposing is employed people working less but for more essential purposes . not to serve the idiotic needs of a Rube Goldberg economic system that responds more to the needs of capital, of Stock Markets, of investor-broker bottom line gobble-dee-gook, than to the needs of people. Our current economic system does not allow this to happen. It must be constantly selling more and more, whether we have objectively chosen to need it, to want it, whether it is healthy emotionally or physically-ecologically for us .

     Ladies and gentlemen, a Frankenstein has been created here. The sooner we bring this monstrous mutant under control, the better off we will be.

     But there are some hopeful signs.

     One of the solutions that has been bandied about in Europe to alleviate this chronic unemployment, is to not lay off the work force but to have the same amount of labor working less hours. Now, under the rules of the game currently adhered to, this is only a stopgap measure meant to get us through some "tough" times. Less work means less earnings . which means less money to spend . which means less crap being bought . which means, according to "them", disaster. But I say EUREKA! This could be the embryonic beginning of a new way of looking at our "economy" and how it should be applied to the real world. Up until now, it has only responded to life at the Stock Market or the needs of the International Monetary Fund. Perhaps we are on the brink of realizing that we should try to mold our economic system to this concept of less work, or less pollution, or less aggravation, or whatever it is we might objectively (can the commercials) decide is best for people, instead of trying to mold our work habits to the needs of the Wall Street mafia.

     Are you listening Paine Webber?