Mystical Disney Song

Look at this stuff
Isn't it neat?
Wouldn't you think my collection's complete?
Wouldn't you think I'm the girl
The girl who has everything?
Look at this trove
Treasures untold
How many wonders can one cavern hold?
Looking around here you think
Sure, she's got everything
I've got gadgets and gizmos a-plenty
I've got whozits and whatzits galore
You want thingamabobs?
I've got twenty!
But who cares?
No big deal
I want more

I wanna be where the people are
I wanna see, wanna see them dancin'
Walking around on those - what do you call 'em?
Oh - feet!

Flippin' your fins, you don't get too far
Legs are required for jumping, dancing
Strolling along down a - what's that word again?
Street

Up where they walk, up where they run
Up where they stay all day in the sun
Wanderin' free - wish I could be
Part of that world

What would I give if I could live out of these waters?
What would I pay to spend a day warm on the sand?
Bet'cha on land they understand
That they don't reprimand their daughters
Proper women sick of swimmin'
Ready to stand

And ready to know what the people know
Ask 'em my questions and get some answers
What's a fire and why does it - what's the word?
Burn?

When's it my turn?
Wouldn't I love, love to explore that world up above?
Out of the sea
Wish I could be
Part of that world

"Part of your world" The Little Mermaid.

I wish I wasn't so busy

... doing corrections and all sorts of other pressing stuff, because that book sure looks good: A Post-Capitalist Politics, and I'd rather be reading it.

And yet another quote of the day

"You eventually learn that true priorities are like arms, if you think you have more than a couple, you're either lying or crazy."

Hotdogsladies

Another quote of the day (or more lazy blogging)

To the Christian, love is the works of love. To say that love is a feeling or anything of the kind is really an un-Christian conception of love. That is the aesthetic definition and therefore fits the erotic and everything of that nature. But to the Christian, love is the works of love. Christ's love was not an inner feeling, a full heart and what-not: it was the work of love which was his life.

Søren Kierkegaard

Quote of the day

"The fact is, the views men (sic) take of the atonement are largely determined by their fundamental feelings of need - by what men most long to be saved from."

B.B. Warfield

Which oppressor would you confront?

A couple of days ago, I engaged with a friend's post about the uses of nonviolence and violence when confronting tangible evil. Faced with the ineffectiveness of non-violent means, he ends up asking himself whether it is better to ask for God's forgiveness for allowing the poor to be crushed while doing nothing about it, or wether we should do something about it, maybe use violence even, and beg God's forgiveness for using violence against those who crush the lives of the poor (which I undertand to be the option chosen by the likes of Klaus Von Stauffenberg and Dietrich Bonheoffer when confronting the n*zi regime).

The original post was a bit too general, and it was hard to pinpoint what type of an oppressor we would be dealing with. A n*zi leader, a local pimp, a "capitalist pig"? So I'm guessing that each reader just undertood the post in relation to the form of oppression which they are most aware of. In my case, it is the systemic oppression of globalised capitalism which most captures my imagination. I read "oppressor" and the first thing I think about when I think of nasty b*stards crushing the poor are fat capitalists, so my comments related to the very tangible exploitation of young Jasmine, who works in a jeans factory in China, and whose experience is depicted in the documentary China Blue. I could not stop thinking about it because Jasmine is really grateful for her job, and yet her job is massively exploitative. The kind of exploitation that makes you want to confront the nasty b*stard who makes her live in these conditions for a ludicrously small salary. So which oppressor should I confront:

- Jasmine’s dad, who got around to having a second baby, in the hope of having a boy, but Jasmine was a girl. She grew up trying to make up for that and earning some hard currency in the big city was one way in which she could do that.

- Jasmine’s direct manager, who implements the drastic productivity expectations of her workplace.

- Jasmine’s employer, who is trying to stay in business by agreeing to his client’s ridiculously cheap prices (less than four dollars a piece for a set of jeans AND jacket) and never misses a deadline, even if it means pushing his workers to exhaustion, on the fear of losing his clients.

- Jasmine’s employer’s client. An Indian guy who lives in the UK and buys clothes which he ten sells to retailers. He’s trying to deliver goods reliably and still make a margin to keep himself in business.

- The retailer of jeans made by Jasmine, who would also argue that he’s trying to make a margin and stay in business in tough economic times, when everybody else is selling similar goods cheaper.

- The girl who works at the retailer of jeans made by Jasmine who needs a job (and pays taxes).

- The buyer of jeans made by Jasmine who likes fashion, preferably cheap, and at the end of the day keeps that particular industry going.

- The person who refuses to buy jeans made by Jasmine and threatens her livelihood without doing anything postive about her situation.

- The person who works in a relatively ethical field, funded either by taxes or donations, and who still ultimately benefits from the system.

Who’s the nasty oppressor, I wonder? I’d say track the one with the most unreasonable margins, and encourage them to redistribute these in terms of better resources and quality of life for Jasmine. But then compared to Jasmine's wages, all of the above make unreasonable margins, and all should redistribute some of it towards her well-being.

It just gets me thinking of Clause IV. You know, the clause that got slashed when Labour became New Labour, and lefties started to largely disinvest the party-political processes to do whatever it is they do outside of it*. It used to be printed on all membership cards. Clause IV read:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best attainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

*Some of it is eminiently worthwhile, don't get me wrong. It is a mistake, a cop-out , and a wate of our time to wait on political parties to bring about the tangible solidarity which is our God-ordered responsibility. We're better of developing versions of it on the ground. But it might also be a mistake to abandon the party entirely to forces that move it away from solidarity.

Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent

Painting by Vasiliy Polenov, click for larger picture