THE GLOBAL MAINTAINISM,
Progressist culture and politics grew in Europe and the United States after WWII. Such ideas and lifestyles where labelled as left-wing, or far-left wing, and established new boundaries with the conservatives from right or far-right wing.
This separation is still pregnant in western society.
Since, it was common for a progressist to oppose anything which come from or anything which is support by a conservative, and vice-versa.
For example, of course progressist movements tend to appear as more sympathetic towards the weak and the oppressed ; it was a easy way to caricatured the conservative as the responsible of all world horrors and inequalities.
In the other hand, the conservatives shown effort of bring the people as a society led by work, order and stability ; by the way, it marginalized the reformist or revolutionnary-like ambitions of their left counterparts.
E+U (employment and unemployment)
From this political painting of western civilization, there is two points of shadow : Work and Interest.
Work is the main occupation of life, which is a work by itself ; nevertheless unemployment is a huge issue of our societies.
Employment, though, is not necessarly a definition or a synonym of work, as well as serfdom or slavery, it isn’t ?
During the Industrial Revolution, labour force have been massively sollicited and exploited (this term is used without any pejorative intent), there were work, and it was in the interests of those who managed or held the economy.
Social struggles, political ideologies as socialism, were a rift, the first social rift in history ; the workers asked better working and living conditions, and by their number became a new organized society ; after the Third Estate in the Kingdom of France, it was the appeareance of the Working Class in all Europe.
D+J (development and justice)
As the working class arised as a revendication, it was then opposed to a so-called ruling class, also designed as exploiting owner and et cetera.
Politicians made their choices, the right wing will defend the ruling class and the economic development, the left wing the working class and economic justice.
Of course, the division was not so simple ; there were right wing parties that defended the interests of the labour force and the intermediate social classes, while some left wing parties strongly encouraged capitalist development, including in form of colonization ; it fited with their ideals or interests of universal progress, intented to be carry by a strong economy, and inversely.
This can explain why in USA or in Europe, the most hostile to imperial or supremacist policy where globally the right wing parts of political sphere.
Everyone knows that the left wing, in USA (Democratic Party), or the labelled liberal progressists in France, for example, were the main support of slavery and colonization, and that the US President Abraham LINCOLN, as well as the major anti-slavery forces in USA, were from the Grand Old Party.
W+R (work and revenue)
Today, after the May 68 social and elitical changes, things are less distinct.
Where is the right and where is the left ? Can the political directions be like the directions in real life, modified by the point of view ?
Do you see any working class nowadays ? Maybe, but if working class still exists, it’s not only in mines and factories, but also in offices, private houses, and behind private-public/recreational-professional personal screens.
In fact, the social struggle for the industrial working class emancipation from their conditions led to the suppression of the industrial working class.
The uplifting of their fees, wages and recreational rights was a cost for the economy governance, but it also permited the workers to enjoy goods and services.
The working force became a buying force, and consumption kind of become thier new slavery, as they were doomed by their expenses at the moment they received their wages, forcing them to continue to work to maintain their new way of life.
With the decline of industrial economy, services became the new provider of work, so the first provider of revenue for aspirant workers.
But they were too many aspirants, so the next threat for the society was the unemployment.
No employment, no revenue, it could be the new socio-economic paradigm, but the increasing number of unemployed people, strenghtened by the economic crisis of the 1970s, created a need of socio-economic protection for them.
The precarity of those who are unemployed, but also, due to the global recession, also of those who are employed, transformed the « employment class », which include the employed -who can potentially become unemployed, and the unemployed -who can potentially become employed, into the new working class.
After the Industrial Revolution, we experienced the Industrial Evolution, with a separation from the traditionnal view of economy, where work was a right. Now it is a chance, but for how long ?
As the work during the Industrial Evolution has been, years after years, denounced by the new working class, for its inhumanity, and its global effects on societies, life and environment, work became questioned on what it is.
Work is it work ? Does I only had to find a job to really work ?
As in the case for the workers in the 19th century, the jobers of the 20th century, more than a employment, requirred a good quality of the employment. Here is the explanation of the labour syndicates existence, and then of the Director for Human Ressources.
Today’s workers of the 21st century, after the quality of employment, considering that employment is precarious or innovative through technology, do not only need to be employed, but to work, to find a meaning to their action and its purpose.
Here is the explanation of corporate Environmental and Social Governance existence.
And where are the political forces in all of this ?
Economic progress in the 20th century, in part monitored by credit, created a need in labour force, but as we saw, western citizens where experienced new go(o)ds, services and privileges that became in their minds incompatible with some professionnal occupations and wages.
As I said, work and interests became the ultimate reason of our societies.
Be opposed to the ultimate reason of our societies would be a sign of opposition to our societies, so neither the right or the left wing can oppose to the new needs of our societies concerning work and interest.
Our societies main needs concerning work and interests were work immigration, for economic purpose; and were organized and promoted by right and left wing, through different reasons appealing to their respective electoral audiences.
For the western right wing political parties, new cheap work force would propulse our economies and replace more expensive revendicative western workers;
For the western left wing political parties, the right wing explanations were relevant, but need the addition of moral values of inclusion, progress and care of societies, etc.
So, strangely, in social or economic ways, immigration became synonym of progress.
We can’t be naive ; immigration didn’t stop to econo-working considerations, it including socio-living considerations.
Immigrant does only work, but live too, -aren’t they human ? And if they come working, they come to live too. And, has they are humans with their respective lives and relationships, their new place of working and living became a place of attraction to such lives and relationships, as the expatriated worker became a source of pride and revenue for her/his whole extended family.
Having the less convoitable working occupations and very low salaries in their new world, the expatraited first gained curiosity, support, and sometimes mockery, but it is normal, even when it associated with contempt.
But as the socio-economic situation of western countries became difficult with times, and the international workers number in their societies increased, various sentiments of doubt, frustration and even hatred appeared ; but it would be a groud-breaking error to just explain this by economy, without exploring the social changes inducted by new social datas implied by expatriated individuals, families and communities.
We’ve said that the new workers came with their lives and relationships, so expatriated families formed.
It is moreover very rare to see an expatriated way of live install into the hosting society, as the expatriated is always in search of acceptance. To be honest we could further study the case of exported way of live into hosting community, but before, we should solve another contradiction that complexify the issue :
What do we have to do towards coming populations ? Does we integrate them as fellows, or as distinct parts of societies ? Do we necessarly had to accept them ? What can be reconforting is that the same questions necessarly occured in new populations mind, as they are grateful for work, acceptance and participation in the common well-being.
But here is a interrogation : Who are the « new » populations ? They are expatriated individuals coming for work, bu we can expect everybody to establish differences between expatriated, between does who came from well accepted regions or cultures and those who came from less considered regions or cultures, and for that need a passage rite before being totally accepted in their new family.
All of this is turned in difficult ways, but we totally understand each others.
It is why policies of assimilation, acculturation and other process occured in western societies towards certain immigration, but we can argue that this process is prevalent in every region and culture of the world.
But of course, someone else can be less submitted to these integration processes than someone else, and these processes are more prevalent in some regions than in some regions, more towards some people than others.
All of this is turned in difficult ways, but we totally understand each others.
To be clear, an US citizen will be less imposed some integration process if he install in Guatemala than a Guatemala citizen if he install in the United States States of America.
This difference between the social expectation towards outsiders, it what we call the Geo-integration gap.
The more powerful or richest or culturally influential and respectable a region is, the more integration process submitted to its citizens will be low when they will install or visits other countries, the less powerful or richest or culturally influential and respectable a region is, the more integration process submitted to its citiezn will be high when they will install or visits other countries.
Logically, the effect of the geo-integration gap is more sensible when a citizen from a low-geo integrated region or culture go to a high-geo integrated region or culture ; and when a citizen from a high-geo integrated region or culture go to a low-geo integrated region or culture.
So to be clear, and never again turn our reflexions in difficult ways even if we understand each other, we can say that western countries appeared for aspirants to work and live there as a high or very-high geo-integrated zone, and that the majority of international workers attracted by western contries to work where people coming from low or very low-integated geo-integrated zone.
What is curious is that the geo-integration is not a statuary position, but a status than came from several criterias as attitude, ambition, initiative or industria, but in great part from perception and reception.
What is curious is that it’s not the wealth that is important but how it is managed, preserved, promoted ans perceived. So the value of wealth come from the value you giver it, and the wealth itself from the value you give to something, material or immaterial.
Moreover, the personal situation and position of an individual, or of a group of individuals or community, as well as their reputation, can influence their perception in their hostingplaces, as a region situation, position, and reputation can influence its hosted people.
We could mesure all these datas by geo-integration scores, additionned with geo-reputation scores.
All of this would form what I call the geo-perception map.Perception because all social reality and impressions came from the being and the doing, which in fact are the same, but also from the (self)consideration. So, in center of all existence is exercice, results and valuation. And at the core of exercice-result-valuation is the value.
Integration is a question of value, the value understood, the value shared, the value accepted.
The question of integration map is this one : what is superior for newers in their values to their hosting society and its values ?
Defended by liberal right wing and progressist left wing, is it possible that expatriation community became the most conservative parts of western societies, and the pillar strongly, fundamentally opposed to their hosting place recession or decadence ?
There is the semi-counter example of the Khadhor’ Americans, when they accept US and western socio-economic decadence, they are Afro-americans, ultimately imported people, as all Non Native Americans, according to common history. When they see through their own agenda and live for America greatness, so oppose to its socio-economic decadence, they are Khadhor’ Americans.
Khadhor’ is not only a question of geography or ethnicity, it is also and primarly a question of culture and value.
So People of African descent that accept the socio-economic decadence of their hosting place, or even of their origin place, are not Khadhor’ but just afro-descent, which mean nothing more than that they are from and that they could go.
But everything come and go, it isn’t ? So come from, or go somewhere is not a remarkable sign of identity such as personal and collective value.
Governing and Living should distinguished the structural values of their own sphere : what maintain life and principles of life is the maintainism, formed by maintainig and also maintenance, so it implies respect and care, not only in a fixed way, but also in sane developing and pragmatism intent.
Maintainism, as the maintain of good life, can be labelled as conservatism, fundamentalism, and is at the center of social, mental, religious, spiritual and medicinal beliefs.
But all of these beliefs, and the victory of science upon moral established that the main interest is not maintain but progress. Progress, even against the maintainism ?
Technology and scientific project break the maintainism system, as a prison and obscurantism.
Maintainism is a right but implies duties that can be not respected; it is the principle of life, and for some spirits and beliefs, the fundament of God, which orders good but allow evil by mind and action liberty.
Thus, be against maintainism, or for some spirits and beliefs, against God, is such an allowing that it permits not only to oppose to good and God, but deny their existence and hurt their principles.
This is a mirror of the fundaments inversion in politics ;
Right wing can oppose expatriation and its descents with left wing views, for example in developping economics and social-progressist views.
Left wing can oppose expatriation with the same views as the right wing, but oppose expatriation would be seen as contrary to left wing progressist values.
Should the left wing, to still what it is, defend expatriation hosting by traditionnal right or far right thesis, that is to say defence of maintainism social values, conservatism of traditional social structures, as well as capitalist development ?
The difficulty of this would be that Inversion Policy (the use of political opponents argumentations to defend your own ideas) should not hurt far right or right suporters feelings if they know it can be deliberate a strategy of their political parties to inverse their argumentations with liberal-progressist ideologies, but it can hurt left wing supporters in regard of right wing and left wing inversion policy, as it would oppose for some of them their socio-progressist values.
Who are predominant in society, and more influent in society, so in elections, not only in polls :
The response to this question will be the key, in the British Queen dominions, in USA, and Europe, of leading political strategy in the next decades.
But the knowing of our societies needs concerning work and interests will prevail in the definition of the western civilization direction in the next centuries.
This considering that after the Industrial Revolution and the Industrial Evolution, then the Technological Revolution, the Ecologic Revolution will play a role that we have to know if we don’t want to only be spectators of the instable and uncertain future of North America and Europe.
Great collective ambition will be necessary, as well as resolute application and total comprehension of these topics, which are today excluded from economic interest and pure financial management.
The opposition of environnment and finance is however unrelevant, not because the two interests are not primarly opposed when considered independantly, but because the functioning of finance and environment can be understood and studied through a common science, it was I call the monetary ecologics, branch of the economy ecologics or finance ecologics.
THE GLOBAL MAINTAINISM (2021), K1FO Research Department