Poor or Rich depends on your location

May 7, 2010 in Equal Money Blog

In an interview with the Danish newspaper Information from the 24/25 April 2010, a Politician from the Socialistic Peoples party (S.F) called Özlem Cekic said that she wants the party to increase their focus on benefitting the mentally ill, the people who are on premature retirement and make decrease poverty.  She said: ‘We are not and should not be a party that just benefits the middleclass’. But is that not exactly what S.F are doing? One of the arguments is that they to get influence and thereby be able to support the poor, has to lean more towards the middle where the votes are to thereby reserve a place in the government. First of all it is directly throwing in the towel to wish to ‘decrease poverty’, in that it does not only imply an accept of the already existing poverty, but also settling with only taking partial responsibility, which could be argued as not taking responsibility at all. This is also shown in the party’s politics in this area in their program, where one of their initiatives to decrease poverty is to ensure that all children in Denmark get a Christmas present. This is a hypocritical approach to poverty as it completely overlooks the fact that there are over a billon people living in starvation, among who are many children. There are two explanations for why the party is choosing this strategy. One is the argument that to make a difference in this world, one has to first take care of ones own. The problem with that is just that the proportions are mildly put, ‘out of focus’. What is called poverty in Denmark, is called Elite or middleclass in countries where most people live for less than two dollars a day. There are two billon of those in the world. The other is the argument that the voters only care about themselves and want a politics that ensures that they can give their child a Christmas present. This is understandable, but not an excuse. The Socialistic Peoples party can not promote themselves as the ‘watchdog of the weak’, without  being clear about who the ‘weak’ actually are, and to target their politics where it counts, which is towards a global inequality and not only towards the individual Danish citizens right to safety and welfare. S.F has a responsibility to what is going on in the world, as do all politicians, but the question is if there is actual politics left in the party that for the last fifty years has been ‘fighting for the weak’, or if they simply exist as an automated pong to the ping politics of the right wing and thereby do not have any real intentions of making a difference. It sounds tough and it is not popular to say out loud, but the fact of the matter is that what is considered middle class in Denmark, is middle class in the rest of the world, where poverty is about starving till you die and not about whether or not you can buy your child a Christmas present. This is not to say that inequality is not relevant in Denmark or that the people who are poor I Denmark are not suffering. This is simply about addressing the fact that if we really want to change a world that is fundamentally based on inequality and exploitation by the rich of the poor, it requires a Global initiative that not only focuses on decreasing poverty, but on Stopping it all together, where we realize that we are a part of a whole with a common Responsibility, that includes the whole world and where political initiative is not only about increasing the individual’s personal happiness and wellbeing, but about creating a world that is acceptable to live in for All.

The Socialistic Peoples Party in Denmark, which is a leftwing libertarian party is becoming increasingly more popular, as the current government (right wing liberalists and conservatives) is being criticized for their handling of the economic crisis. The party started as a communist party and has changed course, especially with their acceptance of the European Union. They are now preparing to enter the government at the coming election and recently had their annual party meeting, where they discussed their party program.