Few people seem to recognize that democracy has an economic side to it — one powerfully intimated at the close of Michael Moore’s latest documentary film, Capitalism — A Love Affair, where he observes (I don’t recall his exact words) that in the light of what he has documented in the film, capitalism is an unacceptable system. And then his closing remark; something like: “There is an alternative to it. It is called democracy”.
Before seeing his documentary Sicko on the private healthcare system in the United States — a system that compares unfavourably with public healthcare in Canada, Britain and Cuba (yes, Cuba!) — I was not all that impressed by Moore’s cinematic offerings, which I thought were too doctrinaire, and not sufficiently understated or nuanced to be effective as critiques of certain mainstream American practices. These ranged from the easy availability of guns Bowling for Columbine to the cynical economic exploitation, by the Bush administration and its cronies, of the war in Iraq Fahrenheit 9/11.
But I thought that both Sicko and Capitalism — A Love Affair had a very powerful impact through their sheer “letting the events and the facts speak for themselves” kind of approach — even if one grants that a director (in this case Moore) unavoidably plays the crucial role of selecting and “directing” the way the film unfolds.
The concluding words in the latter film reminded me of Hardt and Negri’s work on democracy in the age of globalisation, so powerfully articulated in Empire (2001) and Multitude (2005). In the latter they list and discuss a number of “global demands for democracy” in the contemporary world, which have been increasing in strength. In so far as these are directed at governmental authorities and multinationals, they are attempts to communicate a variety of grievances pertaining to serious encroachments on the principles of democracy, which they understand as a form of social and political arrangement which can only, justifiably, happen or “arise from below”, as “the rule of everyone by everyone”, that is, governance with the participation of the people (who would thus be both the “rulers” and the “ruled”).
The worldwide protests (some of which we are witnessing right now at the G8 and G20 meeting in Toronto) against the global political and economic system can therefore be understood as a sign that “democracy cannot be made or imposed from above”. Hardt and Negri list three principal elements which recur constantly across the board in all the global demands in question as preconditions for democracy, namely: ” … the critique of existing forms of representation, the protest against poverty, and the opposition to war”.
One should keep in mind that these grievances are indissolubly connected to what Hardt and Negri take to be an increasingly obsolete political conceptualisation and vocabulary, which were forged in the crucible of the birth of modernity, and which can increasingly be seen as having little purchase on the requirements for democracy in the postmodern, globalised world. As such, they are manifestations, at a fundamental level, of what may be described as the contemporary crisis in communication at many levels.
One may gain some understanding of this state of communicational failure from closer scrutiny of some of the contemporary “demands for democracy” briefly listed above. Drawing a parallel between the social and political significance of the more than 40 000 cahiers de doléances (lists of grievances) compiled all over France and submitted to Louis XVI just prior to the French Revolution of 1789, and the accumulating lists of similar grievances today — ranging from the most local contexts to the “highest”, most encompassing levels of governance — they observe (in Multitude) that one might see these protests, today, against the present form of economic, cultural and political globalisation in the same light as the protests preceding and foreshadowing the 18th-century French Revolution.
The very fact that, in Multitude, Hardt and Negri can write that “[m]ost contemporary protests focus, at least in part, on the lack of representation” — which they also refer to as “the crisis of representation” — draws attention to (the lack of) communication between constituencies and those who supposedly represent them worldwide, from local through national to global (international) institutions of representation. The following excerpt seems to have been written at least partly with the 2006 local government elections in South Africa in mind (p. 270):
‘The false and distorted representation of local and national electoral systems has long been a subject of complaint. Voting seems often to be nothing more than the obligation to choose an unwanted candidate, the lesser of two evils, to misrepresent us for two or four or six years. Low levels of voter turnout certainly undermine the representative claim of elections: those who do not vote serve as a silent protest against the system.”
Does this not ring a familiar bell for South Africans, who, not too long ago, witnessed, in their young democracy, “low levels of voter turnout” (which were admittedly much higher at national level elections after the Polokwane coup), and were, weeks after the local government elections of 2006, witnessing protests on the part of communities (I recall Christiana in the North-west Province, and Kirkwood in the Eastern Cape, to mention but two) about unwanted appointees, like mayors, that political parties were foisting on them? It is no exaggeration to claim that these protests signify a fundamental divergence in interests between the electorate and their so-called representatives, who (before these elections) were widely accused of corrupt practices for personal gain.
In South Africa the disillusionment on the part of only recently franchised voters is probably also connected with recurring evidence of the growth of a broader elite class, at the cost of the working classes. When I recently read the reports in the Mail and Guardian concerning the way that a family member of the chairperson of the Local Organizing Committee was benefiting financially from the accommodation requirements of overseas visitors during the World Cup, and, secondly, of the arrogant manner in which Eskom management appropriated for themselves millions of rand for the most expensive World Cup tickets (some of which sold for R17 000 each!), I was not only disgusted. I was also reminded of Hardt and Negri’s work on the growing protests against the three conditions listed above, especially the second one — the protest against poverty.
The first report has since been dismissed by the official in question (Danny Jordaan), and one does not know what to believe in this case (but I assume that M&G had evidence of what it claims in this regard). As for the second report: imagine the sheer arrogance of these fat cat, high salary-earning executives who — at a time when they are assuring the unions that worker demands for wage increases are unrealistically high (!), and when Eskom needs billions to expand its power-supply capacity — arrogate to themselves the right to spend millions on themselves for luxury seating, with sumptuous meals being served to them while watching World Cup soccer matches!
My reason for referring to these instances in the context of the demands for democracy as outlined by Hardt and Negri, is simply this: humans’ historical memory is appalingly short, and unless those in power (not only in South Africa, but worldwide) recall events such as the submission of the people’s grievances to the French king just prior to the French Revolution in 1789 (referred to above), they may find themselves facing a much broader and more sustained series of protests, if not a rebellion, on the part of the working classes.
In Michael Moore’s film, alluded to earlier (Capitalism — A Love Affair), there are several scene-sequences where ordinary, middle-class members of the American public are shown showing their displeasure at the way that the elites were rescued from financial disaster with the help of public funds, and I have been noticing signs of spreading dissatisfaction on the part of Americans in the international press, too. And no wonder: while these scoundrels (like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs), who are, by all accounts, largely responsible for precipitating the global financial crisis, are sitting with their bums in the butter, as it were, millions of Americans have lost their homes.
My advice to the ruling elites is simple: start doing what is democratically just, in economic terms, as far as the masses of workers are concerned. One cannot ignore the probability, that, sooner or later, they will have had enough of being exploited, while the elites flaunt their mostly unearned wealth. In economic terms, what is democratically just is called “distributive justice” — in a society that has the pretence of promoting justice, this is no less important than “legal justice”.
The real problem with democracy is that it does not scale efficiently. Plato could not have conceived that countries of 200 million people would be voting democratically. In Platos conception of democracy, every ones voice could be heard.
Today we have a structure where we sign away all of our rights to the most popular candidate for the next four years and hope for the best. Our current political system is totally perverted. candidates abuse their power. Political favours, and the law of the countries of the world are for sale to the highest bidders. We are on the verge of seeing fascism re-emerge on a global scale.
In South Africa we have just had FIFA dictating
the laws of the country (a form of fascism) . I would argue that this is unconstitutional here, but by the time it reaches the constitutional court the FIFA circus would have moved on.
We need a new political dispensation. Fortunately electronic systems and counting can re-enable a new form of democracy. With technology we could participate and vote on every single issue. There are several forms of new democracy being explored at the moment, and I certainly hope that an open participatory democratic system is adopted world wide.
We’re at the stage where silent protest = apathy. It’s time to get involved and start working for a brighter future – your political idealogy is not of primary importance, but your showing up is!
The reward for apathy is marginalisation, which leads down a very dirty slope towards “justified” civil violence & protest.
People have never before had so many readily available & relatively cheap methods of making their voices heard – perhaps it’s time to develop the channels for participation to match?
Let’s get parliament in a topless bus tour of all our provinces? Or start an online forum where MP’s & members of the executive arm of govt have to log a quota of “online hours” responding to the public?
One thing is for sure…the time for this is now and the answer is participative democracy!
I find the article to be inaccessible, had to read it twice before I “got” it. But yes your argument is interesting. The Republican ideal of trickledown economics is rather scary. My gripe is that democracy generally becomes a platform for the powerful to mislead their followers. You mention the unrest with regards to service delivery yet it is those very same people that voted those councillors into power, despite there being alternatives. Arguing that those alternatives are also unpalatable is not valid as they are untested and as such a value statement cannot reasonably be furthered. Furthermore blaming capitalism for the majority of our social ills is also questionable as the Americans are not representative of the whole of the capitalist world even though they are currently the most dominant. The alternatives to capitalism have been proven to be even worse. Personally I think the problem with capitalism lies mainly with uncontrolled consumerism rather than a hunger for money. Consumerism can be curtailed as Greece is currently attempting.
Just recently read a funny true statement: “there are more communists in Berkely California than in Beijing.” There is a good reason for this, intellectuals in the “West” hate thriving successful capitalists and have not experienced communism hands on. They spend their time agonising about “capitalisms’ faults but never ever suggest any fixs that are gleaned after discussing with those who have actually experienced leftest communism. Cuba is loved and never critised but why do Cubans continue to leave this socialist paradise for ugly US and why are there 11-13million illegal refugees in the US, most having bypassed Cuba and that other socialist paradise Venuzuela? Easy answer, you cant fool the common people who are not proteced by the “capitalist” better known as the Free Market Multi Party system, they crave its protections and freedom to excel.
Also there are no intellectuals in communist states challenging the system they are all liquidated or put away in jail.
Thus one never reads that Mao had 15, yes 15 houses all to himself paid for and built on state funds. At least the Rockerfellows use their own money to build their many houses.
Bert try and be less verbose and leave out those long long words that need to be looked up by the common person that you so worry about.
Brent
Good article. I agree with the gist of it.
It is unfortunate, however, that it seem that you have fallen for the political elite’s propaganda that this is all the banks’ fault – while they work on another strategy to get you to bail out their buddies in the financial sector/banks.
I have not seen the Moore movie but it would be interesting to see how he spins it.
As for your advice, it would be nice to see you elaborate more on this. What do you mean by “democratically just” (rule of the collective)? Why only the workers and what type of political setup to you envisage in which workers call the shots? What about “distributive justice” in economic terms – why is this more democratically just? On what grounds do you distribute and what is your justification for doing so?
@Robin Grant: This sounds good but would you agree that it is always good to submit to the majority? (Unless you still want to maintain some basic rights that cannot be changed or infringe on by additional rights – constitution/bill of rights) Jefferson and the American founding fathers warned against mob rule and the tyranny of the masses.
@Illuvatar: Agree. I think people are doing this in SA on different levels. From civil society organisations, rate payers associations to tax boycotts and service delivery protests. People are asking what the government is doing for them and some are even realising that the state is not very good at doing much and starting to do things for themselves.
New democracy in action? Of course it can be done. Two cases recently proved it. Nestle stops dealing with a known human rights abuser because of the power of the ordinary persons voice on the net. The ban on commercial whaling upheld because of participative democracy on the net, where anyone can state their views, no matter where they find themself on the globe. It is not working in South Africa because that vital tool, the internet, is not available to the majority and prohibitively expensive to most. Anyone who finds the costs “reasonable” really have no idea how the majority live. A good standard education is obviously a prerequisite as well. In this country only the rich can afford that for their children, never mind themselves any more.
Poverty is a misleading term since it is not an absolute but a comparative term. Rather than combat “poverty” one should combat its relative cause, poor education.
@HD – No. The systems I have seen have multiple voting structures. In these systems people’s expertise and level of participation is valued, so you would have a much higher number of votes within your area of expertise. The systems rely on an open vote so that all voting is transparent.
So for example if you were an educator and the tabled issue related to education, you might have 50 votes on a subject and as a non educator I might only have 1 or none. More experience, education, and participation would increase your voting in your area of expertise up to a maximum ceiling.
Voting would happen from your local government right up to national government.
So you could vote on issues relating to your local municipality, and you could also table items. At the moment as normal citizens we have virtually no input on how our societies are run.
A political party gets into power and spends as much time as possible entrenching their position and milking the system for financial gain. It is time for a serious change.
Democracy works optimally when certain fundamentals are in place:
- Voters have to have access to balanced and accurate information. (The stranglehold of the SABC on broadcasting violates this principle. The mass of voters depend on it for information, which is consistently pro-government.)
- Fundamental rights should be inviolate, even if a large majority would wish to change them. (In SA, the rights of minorities are at risk, should 2/3rds of the population support the ANC.)
- Leaders should be subject to legal constraints. (Zuma and his cronies have clearly demonstrated how they are able to side-step many of these constraints.)
- Ideally, voters should be educated so that their votes are rational and are based on solid information—not knee-jerk emotional responses. (This is a major problem in our country.)
- The principal of subsidiarity should apply—i.e. the notion that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. This speaks to federalist rather than centralised models of governance; to the rights of local municipalities, like-minded communities (language, religious, etc) and even to family rights. We do ok in this regard in SA, but are constrained by local incompetence, as well as by state control of some resources (e.g. regulations constraining local broadcasting).
@Prof Olivier – The ruling elite will not be swayed, I’m afraid. I am reminded of Robespiere’s Reign of Terror which so mirrors our current situation. The Jacobins, like the current government, had the backing of the disempowered who saw the guillotine as their only means to empowerment. It had nothing to do with justice, democratic or otherwise but a lot to do with a population who had been pushed too far and saw the enemy as anyone who were in a position of power over them: clergy, scientists, nobility. This happens, it seems, when those in power fail the people. To stay in power, these revolutionaries usually devolve from a democracy to a dictatorship. I’m sure the parallels in Africa is not hard to miss. It appears that it is an almost natural process. obedience – revolt – choice
Two quotes from the recent meeting to decide on the fate of whales, to me captures this worldwide movement towards true democracy:
“This is an important victory for whales — and for global people power — together we demonstrated that international decisions can be shifted by a little bit of well-placed effort from a lot of people everywhere.”
And
“I believe the people of the world’s voices need to be heard. I certainly hear them today.”
Politicians play to popular demand. Change the mind of their followers and they will follow. I agree with Bret and Doorfoot simpler narrative might perhaps work better on the masses.
@ Brent: You seem to be ignorant of the difference between verbosity and the need for the right words in the right place. Bert is certainly not verbose. Secondly, this post is not primarily about capitalism versus communism (which Bert has never espoused, by the way); it is about the cynical economic oppression and exploitation of the world’s poor by the super-wealthy, It follows that the kind of thing that you refer to on Mao’s part (claiming for himself what was denied to other “comrades”) would be equally unacceptable to him (Bert). You should read more carefully.
Apologies: Brent, not Bret.
HD – I agree with Derrida that ‘democracy is always still to come’, i.e. it never reaches optimal level. Hence, with democtatic justice I do not have in mind the rule of the collective, but I certainly believe that ways need to be found to give the working classes a far greater slice of the economic pie than at present – after all, they comprise the vast majority of people in the world. The statistic, that (if I recall correctly) 1% of the US population own 95% of the wealth, beggars imagination, for example. It is something that cannot be sustained indefinitely. And I recall reading in the news media, recently, that SA has now replaced Brazil as the MOST UNEQUAL society in the world. That confirms my argument, here. I believe that ‘distributive justice’ is something that could be furthered through taxation – tax the wealthy more and distribute the wealth/funds among the poor and the workers, not necessarily as cash, but possibly in other benefits, such as medical and educational. Norway comes to mind as a paradigm – on the UN development index it usually either has the highest average income in the world, or close to it, even though there are no drastic discrepancies between one person’s income and the next, no matter what your job entails. This is democratically just, to my mind. In Moore’s film on capitalism he talks to people at US companies organized on this principle, where CEOs earn the same as others.
Robin – You talk a lot of good sense, with most of which I agree, as do you, here, XCepting. And I agree that the elites won’t be easily swayed – that is something that Machiavelli understood far better than Marx – for the former, there would always be a chasm between the ruled and the rulers, rather than a gradual movement towards a ‘classless society’. One may agree with Machiavelli, but that’s no reason to avoid attempts at mitigating the enormous economic discrepancies in the world. But the elites never learn, and it is the most difficult thing in the world, it seems, for people to exchange a modicum of their material wealth for a sense of economic justice. Even philanthropists, who regularly donate large sums to the upliftment of the poor, could do better than that. What they do, leaves the sources of economic inequalities intact, instead of changing those. What humans the world over should learn, is precisely NOT to accept the status quo. It is rooted in historical developments, and therefore can again be changed historically. In view of my recent post on Lovelock’s latest book, however, I suspect that the probable changes we face in the climate may pre-empt our best efforts at instantiating economic justice, and create other priorities (which the rich and powerful will no doubt address in ways that benefit them maximally). Maria – Thanks for your timely, well-articulated intervention.
@Prof Olivier – Quite agreed, as said before, Machiavelli might have had the morals of a conman but he certainly understood human nature.
Through the ages, there has been different words for those who dominate those who like being dominated. Aristocracy, cattle barons, nobility, industrialists, ikons, etc. etc. Are we(unfairly) criticising having “alphas” in society, or are we merely criticising their form of leadership? It is a nice dream to have a society of alphas but not everyone likes that postion.
(b.t.w. I loved that “, here,”
)
@Robin Grant – Is what you are describing not just another form of elitism, what I think is called a meritocracy? Should one not consider that academics, although vital, are not more important in the system than physical workers? Whose services would you miss most, the person who clears your blocked drain and maintains your roads or the philosopher at your local university? (no slight intended Prof, I do consider philosophers important but wish they would take a more active role, as you do here)
If you look at natural systems and other species there are competition for the best in a certain role(job) and the best(most experienced, knowledgable) is rewarded but across roles there is no class system. Each part being as necessary as the other for the whole to work. Just because one is not a qualified teacher does not mean that one should not have the same vote on how & what your child is taught as a teacher.
There are just too damn many of us – finish and klaar.
@Bert
The Gini coefficient is problematic. In SA you also need to take into consideration government grants and also what people can buy with their money (rather than looking at differences in income). But there is a whole new post on this.
As the Iron Lady herself put it “Socialism is only good until you run out of other peoples’ money”. This is already happening in SA with its small tax base. How much more can people afford to give to government? We already have very high tax rates for a developing country and not to talk about tax on small/big business.
What are people getting in return for their taxes? How much of it actually reaches the people? I reckon high taxes is not the way to go – rather give people more money in their pockets to determine their future for themselves than rely on a corrupt and wasteful government. (This is real freedom for me)
The European welfare state project is collapsing. It has simply become unsustainable. Greece and many other EU countries with their low fertility rates simply cannot afford to pass the buck anymore…there is not enough grandchildren being produced to pay(payoff the debt) for their grandfathers “welfare”.
This is what I find completely disempowering and morally corrupt with the welfare state. (Any way as pointed out before Norway became rich before it create the welfare state and like the rest of Europe is rapidly cutting back welfare programs)
@HD,I have to agree with in some way,we blame the Capitalists too much,but we make them,we aloow them,we seem to behave like visitors who wait for the master to say when to eat or how,there are many ways to get involved without being a card carrying members of any political parties.The bottom line is that we are lazy,cowards mostly to takcle our problems,apathy is a deadly disease because we will take action when after the war when we could have prevented it.
Maria, tks for your explanation but Bert never ever attacks socialist/marxists but always ‘the capilalists” so it is fair to assume he supports the former two. Plus his blog was very long and could have been shortened (and simplified) without detracting from its message.
Brent
Bert, nothing conquer over rational thinking related actions and results – I think your opiniated article is spot on – keep analysing current affairs
@Carla Bauer – It can never be said often enough! Overpopulation creates incredible power pools with the support of huge markets of empoverished, localised in the hands of a very few, who will never give it up, not even by force, since they can naturally afford the best defenses against any attack as well.
We will continue to go astray if we do not think through what we mean by ‘democracy’ (generalities like ‘govt by the people’ or ‘governance with the participation of the people’ will simply not do because they let in the most despotic regimes); and, specifically, whether SA can be described as a democracy in any sense of the word we wish to apply.
Prsentlly SA is, on the plain evidence, a monocracy. One party has been in power for 16 years and looks set to remain in power for the indefinite future. Apart from the hope that one might wish it does, it is difficult to explain convincingly how this situation differs from the one, say, in Zim, which also considers itself a ‘democracy’ because the ruled historically vote for Zanu-PF remaining in power (or can be bribed or intimidated into doing so – whichever you prefer).
The best way of starting about this task is to see that democracy is a culture, literally a way of life, not a ‘system’ or set of mechanisms. This is why democracy cannot in any meaningful way be transferred from one society to another.
Democracy most certainly develops from below and is never imposed from above.
‘Democracy’ is also nothing to do with ‘Communism’ as these words are generally used. Rather it could be said to be an alternative to it – how ‘genuine communism’ was supposed to work in institutional terms never having been made clear by anyone, most likely because it cannot be.
@Brent, you are confusing terms! You argue that since Communism in the USSR & PRC was a totalitarian nightmare (that murdered, on recent estimates, 65 million people during the era of Stalin & Mao), & since poor people in South America are trying to get access to jobs in the USA, we should reject calls for improving the functioning of democracy.
Your conclusion does not follow from the premises of your argument…
This is a regular and unfortunate confusion amongst those who unthinkingly equate all criticism of capitalism and liberal democracy with a desire for totalitarianism. As if anyone would opt for a murderous state. There are countless many arguments against the failed, communist systems; but that is to miss the point.
What matters is how we can protect our fragile democracies from the spectre of plutocracy – i.e. people who want to monopolise resources at the expense of everyone else. What matters is how to improve on the social and economic well-being of all us folk who share this crowded little planet. Capitalism is evolving in such a way that it is becoming a threat to the principles of freedom and fairness. This is happening now!
Increasingly wealth is becoming concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of powerful people. This is of such concern to world leaders that they believe it is threatening the functioning of capitalism itself. That is the subtext of the current G20 meetings.
This is what I think Bert is reminding us of.
@Bert
Further to your comment on Goldman Sachs multi-millionaire, CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, you will find the following article on the role of Goldman in the creation of booms and busts over the last century of some interest.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796
@Brent, to explain a little further.
Francis Bacon noted that, “Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands… Money is like muck, not good except it be spread.”
To put this in perspective, the current distribution of wealth measured on the basis of purchasing power parity for 3 selected regions is as follows (ref. UCLA UNAWIDER Report).
1. Asia has around half the world’s population and owns 29% of the world’s net worth.
2. Africa has around 10% of the world’s population and owns around 1% of the world’s net worth.
3. North America has around 5% of the world’s population but owns around 27% of the world’s net worth.
So the average North American is 5 times wealthier than the average Asian and 50 times wealthier than the average African (including you).
Within the US, according to the Federal Reserve Bank, 10% of the population owns 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owns 38%. In their analysis of wealth distribution within the US, they note that, “from 1992 to 2004 the wealth share of the least wealthy half of the population fell significantly to 2.5 percent of total wealth”.
So 50% of the U.S. population held 2.5% of the national wealth in 2004. They worry that the capitalist system fails on wealth distribution.
We should be worried too. Don’t you think?
Democracy, Socialism, Capitalism, Loaferism, Trendertrepenurs and so on are systems that can work if the people work.
Nothing works if people don’t work.
There are never enough people who do work to support all those who do not work, or sponge of the various systems.
Democracy offers huge rewards for votes without the income to support those offered rewards, especially in South Africa. Socialism does the same.
Capitalism tells us that if you work you will be rewarded and that if you don’t you won’t get anything. There is no such thing as free lunch, water, electricity, houses and so on.
So let’s forget about all the political buz words and all the fempty promises and go back to basics that are to be found in the Bible.
Sowing and reaping. If you do not sow you will not reap. And you cannot reap what others sow because those that do sow will soon give up sowing.
Whatever the high faluting political system may be, everyone cannot be a chief. Where are the Indians?
Education, effort and work (sowing) are the only answers. With good production all will prosper. With huge welfare all will suffer.
There is no such thing as “I deserve because I was born here”. Yes, an opportunity to sow and reap exists because we are born here but that is all.
@Paul Whelan – Democracy: demos = people -cracy = rule by. Nothing more, nothing less. Simply means that instead of being told what to do by an elite in whatever form, rules are agreed upon by vote, everyone’s, without fear or favour.
I agree that democracy should become a way of life though. A lot of un-politically minded people I speak to every day still thinks we live in the facist NP “Republic” of the past (thou shalt not) or the communist partican underground ANC “Republic” of the past (let’s terrorise these oppressors). Until the population at large is taught our Constition and how democracy can change their day-to-day lives, this strange hybrid master-slave “Republic” will continue to exist, to the detriment of “the people”.
Correction: Constition = Constitution
Ultimately, in a very diverse nation, the federal version, which allows sections of society greater leeway to decide how they wish to live would be ideal. It would be nice not to follow America exactly though, they are different to us in many ways. I could never call myself European-African
@ Master bates
What is included under “wealth” in your stats from the federal reserve? Can you give more detail please. thanks.
Master Bates i fear you and Bert fall into the trap of being what Lenin called ‘useful fools’. By continually attacking ‘Free markets” unequal distribution it leaves it open for totalitarianism (not attacked) of all stripes to take the gap. Give solutions to your moans.
I do not fear/resent/hate unequal distribution (every system since the dawn of manking has it) but poverty. In my opinion, restricting the rich who are also the builders/developers makes more poverty not less. A sporting analogy: being envious of Bolt always winning the 100meters race does not make others better/faster by handicapping him and thus “spreading’ the gold medals. Better to spend the resources/anger/envy on training/educating the “lesser’ athletes who then compete at a higher level not an artificially created lower level.
If your view of the world is a zero sum world then yes attack/limit the best to less than they achieve but if it is not a zero sum game allow all to soar to their upper limits, just make sure the starting line is equal. This by the way starts with equal education not equal stuff/money.
Brent
HD – The Gini Coefficient may be ‘problematic’ – what isn’t, in economics? – but when you look at the colour-coded map of the world indicating its relative applicability in different coutries, it bears out my argument – all those countries with a social democratic past and present are low on the scale in terms of inequality (shown in shades of Green), while South Africa is one of 2 countries (if I recall) in the RED – the WORST Gini Coefficient rating possible, approximating ‘absolute’ inequality of 100. Even Brazil is now in the Orange.
Master Bates – Thank you for your illuminating contributions – I could not have put it better if I tried. The point is, unless the world’s countries strive meaningfully to reduce economic inequalities, we are facing an increasingly unstable future, socially and politically speaking. You cannot insulate economic conditions from political action, as many historical revolutions show.
I should have added that it should be apparent that I am on the side of the underdog, in the interest of social, political and economic justice. Any so-called philosopher who does not work tirelessly for such justice – in addition to practising philosophy intellectually in academic circles, of course – is not really a philosopher. Socrates is my exemplar here – he set the example of working ceaselessly to enlighten his fellow-Athenians through philosophical analysis and argument, ultimately not only for intellectual insight, but also for the sake of a better ethical practice, lest his ‘daimon’ (conscience, I would say) indict his actions. Of course, where we moderns and postmoderns differ from Socrates and Plato is here: they believed that no person would KNOWINGLY do wrong. They had a different understanding of the connection between knowledge and ethical action, it seems, because we ‘know’ that one can (and often does), indeed, KNOW what is right and yet do the opposite. Perhaps one should modify Socrates’ stance on this as follows: it is less forgivable to do wrong when one understands the various avenues of action open to one than when this is not the case. But I would argue that even such knowledge is no guarantee that one would follow the ethical route. Ultimately, I believe, Lacan is right when he indicates that one can be only be sure that one has acted ethically when, more often than not, one discerns, behind one’s actions, something transgressive of conventional beliefs.
@Brent, once again you miss the point… I may be a fool but at least I’m useful…Allow me to break it down for you…
I am not opposed to capitalism per se nor am I proposing a universal equality in the share of wealth, nor am I proposing that we bring back Stalin to vanish our families for us.
No, what I am describing is a historical phenomenon of relatively recent origins which involves an increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small minority of people, who are now using their power to dictate our future for generations to come. I am not alone in pointing this out as indicated above.
To argue, as you do that, it was always that way, or that, it reflects our differing abilities, completely misses the point. To take one example, inflation adjusted incomes – for those of us who work – have fallen over the past 20 years. This fall has been compensated for by increases in personal & public debt. Governments such as your beloved US are now amongst the most indebted in the world. Profits from this credit boom have been raked in by a few folks who have worked the system. Trust me, these people are not the ‘best’ in society, they are the most villainous. Unfortunately it’s come at particular expense to the Western democracies.
Do yourself a favour, take your own advice, get informed. It’s not about hampering the best, but enabling the best in all.
@Bert
I think you need to look at historic studies of the Nordic welfare states and how the system was introduced and what is happening to it now (large scale reforms even before financial crisis). (I have posted links before…)
They are super free market in many respects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8765
That aside – we simply cannot afford it.
Also have a look at this little excerpt from Ridley’s “The Rational Optimist” comparing living standard in 1955 to 2005:
http://www.odemagazine.com/exchange/16888/the_rational_optimist_by_matt_ridley_a_book_excerpt
It is simply not true that we are going backwards (not that you argued this). Things have always been steadily improving.
This is my biggest gripe with environmentalist and others activists that somehow claim that the capitalist system has massively failed us…
Not that the current system is perfect by any means!
I appreciate and can agree with many activists and critics of capitalism when they point out the flaws of the current system. I certainly also have many gripes with what passes as “free market capitalism” and “democracy” today.
What I have a problem with is when these issues turn into rambling rants based on very little empirical evidence and full of all sorts of emotional rhetoric (bubble gum activist marxism without any real substance).
The lines between operational democracy and communism as opposed to their theoretical differences are so blurred these days anyway that a hybrid word would better suit most current governments (China for instance).
The important part is the equitable sharing out of the pie, not what we call government, and also, of course, how much pie per person that makes, since the pie is getting smaller and the sharers are multiplying and doing their darnest to fill the Earth. So, two main, equal issues then: unequal pie and ever shrinking pie.
The question is not whether capitalism results in inequality, which is generally does, but what is to be done about it.
Radicals tend to shy away from tackling the question because it brings them up against the role of the state and its relation to property and, in particular, the insoluble problem that liberty and equality are not compatible.
Communists, pre- and post-Marx, always fell back finally on some kind of reformation in human nature as the solution and one will believe that to be possible or not as one chooses. The world’s great religions generally believe it is – or at least urge us all to it.
The practical alternatives attempted so far have been small experimental socialist communities that often ended in failure even at their scale of operation and the larger scale nightmares of the socialist regimes round the world during the 20th Century. These often involved the notion of the emergence of a new ‘socialist’ (or ‘fascist’) man.
We remember them. The ‘new’ men, where they emerged at all, turned out to be brainwashed automata who had lost any capacity to see another point of view on politics, art or life or to act any longer in any way most of us would call human.
Swedish Welfare State explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDE8ve35f0
The news of gross government misspending of large amounts on luxury items and luxury living for ministers/officials does not surprise me at all – it merely confirms my argument in this post. The arrogance of the new ‘elites’ knows no bounds. I wonder for how much longer the impoverished masses will tolerate it, however. As the DA has argued, it is a shame that the money – in excess of R1 billion, if I recall correctly – was not spent on the upliftment of the poor in various ways, such as on study bursaries for students who cannot afford the high cost of tertiary education.
An appropriate metaphor for the view expressed in your article is that of countries as a series of mountain climbers clawing their way up ‘Mount Progress’. The strongest are near the top while others lag behind hampered by the smallness of stature, poor equipment or lack of training. They meet blockages on their way and they cannot withstand natural calamities visited on them by landslide and climatic inclemency which occasionally throw them further down the mountain. The climbers near the top will often throw down ropes to haul the others up. Frequently the ropes are not strong enough because the good climbers never throw down their best ropes and are always selective of which of those lower down will receive help. However, most of the stragglers believe that by following in the footsteps of the lead climber they will all get there in the end. There are those who select an alternative route and refuse help from the lead climber but they are not doing nearly as well. When everyone gets to the summit, they will join hands in mutual congratulation because they are all in the same place.
This analogy explicitly describes the problem that has been there in describing countries with different positions in this development view.