FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
NG,
Sorry about the long delay, but here is my reply.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
IF ALL establishments are "up to their eyeballs in corruption and lies", then what form of "establishment" do you expect to replace the capitalistic, liberal democratic "establishments" with, exactly? Not in idealistic terms (a world of peace, where lions lay down with lambs and serenity closes over the land ...), but what institutions do you honestly desire to build or accept that will achieve whatever it is that you consider "just"?
Firmhand, you're confusing capitalism with democracy.
Not really. I tried to use your terminology in my question.
However, I do believe that capitalism and democracy are linked, due to basic philosophical parts of a rights based democracy are encouraged and emphasized by the concept of property rights.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The US has backed and imposed authoritarian regimes sympathetic to the US capitalist system e.g. Iran, Brazil, Nicaragua, Venezuala. The spread of capitalism is more important than the spread of democracy to the US. Capitalism is simply an open economic system, it can just as easily be led by an authoritarian tryant. Granted, a liberal economic system is a pillar of democracy, but on its own it is nothing more than an open economic system.
I'm not sure that the facts bear you out, in the long run.
I think a major problem with this thinking is failure to think in historical time scales (100 years plus).
The two major arguments for your point of view here are China and Singapore, I'd think.
China has only recently started to develop capitalistic systems. One of the first reactions was Tinamen Square. Just recently, they started implementing property rights in order to continue fueling their economy.
Singapore seems to be a rather special cause, and I think you can make an argument of exceptionalism in its case, based on its size, location, and historical factors.
Do you have any other examples of an "authoritarian tyrant" leading a nation heavily invested in capitalism?
I do take notice that you classify capitalism as an open economic system. What is your definition of an "open" and a "not open" economic system? How do you distinguish between them and how do you see capitalism as a "pillar of democracy"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Genuine democracy must include mass participation, an active civil society and equal opportunity - this is actively discouraged where it clashes with US market interests. There's a few questions for you at the end of my post, but your quote above demands the following 2 to be raised:
1) Do you believe capitalism and democracy are the same thing, as your quote suggests?
2) Do you believe the US to be a democratic nation in practice?
1. I believe that they are closely linked, and reinforcing systems. You can't have one without the other for the most part, for very long.
2. Yes, the US is a democratic nation in practice.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
In answer to your questions:
Some meat on the bones of my corruption comment, so the rest of the post is in context:
Democracy has been corrupted. The economy and society are interwoven, but, ultimately, generating wealth is supposed to support society’s well being. Instead, the West, in particular Britain and the US, have societies serving wealth creation. Thus equal opportunity, mass participation and an active civil society are down the pecking order of priorities.
Examples of the corruption of democracy as follows:
The US:
Germany:
Britain:
Britain and the US:
Governments operating fascist control methods in order to prevent mass public protest against corporate society e.g. ID card schemes, Patriot Acts, phone bugging, CCTV, detention without a trial etc.
Western countries in general:
Where governments attempt to spend on social provision, corporations and financial markets threaten to raise interest rates, collapse the currency or move production abroad. Ultimately, politicians are not prepared to risk the political and social costs of such actions. Consequently, unelected corporations dictate tax and spend policies, and if they deem universal health care not to be in the public’s interests or too expensive, then you won’t be getting any.
In sum, the people do not run the West. The corporation is king, the government is their servants and the people its loyal subjects. The democratic system has been completely corrupted and people have been sold an illusion of freedom where they believe having the option to holiday in Japan or Brazil, or buying a bigger television, is freedom. The ability to make money (wealth creation) is not freedom; freedom is a state of mind.
The German Finance Minister on resigning his position in protest at the state of affairs: the heart is not traded on the stock market yet. That is about the size of it.
What I find interesting in your post is that you basically seem to be agreeing that capitalism itself isn't wrong or bad, just that the focus on wealth creation beyond what you deem moral is what is wrong with the current "establishment".
Because the US seems to be the engine and philosophical focus of capitalism in the free world, it comes under great scrutiny and opprobrium.
I still think we have to have a discussion about what exactly "foreign policy" is, though, to get into more detail about some of the specifics that you take exception to in your post here, and in other places in the forum.
I do want to discuss your definition of "freedom" in more detail, though, in a bit.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
A better system and examples:
A better system is the genuine democracy of equal opportunity and mass participation in society (rather than the 50% take up and abdication of civil liberties). A genuine democracy would bind society together with values of humanity, equal opportunity and prosperity. It would replace the situation we have now where 1% of the people own 40% of the wealth in the US and 23% in Britain – this situation is simply the king and his lords being replaced with the CEO and his execs. Democracy would place the running of society into the hands of the people with elected government officials acting as servants/administrators.
In terms of the economy, democracy would allow for sustainable economic growth where the shared values of humanity and prosperity would drive investment in people at the grass roots level as well as investment in innovation and job creation – in other words, a balance.
In terms of examples of real democracy in action: - Harold Wilson’s British Labour government refused to send soldiers to Vietnam under huge pressure from the Americans and WW1/2 debt. He placed humanity above the economy, life above money.
- The British Labour Governments between 1900 and 1970 who introduced nation-wide education, fought for enfranchisement, backed women’s suffrage, created the National Health Service, presided over slum clearances. In other words, acting as a government concerned with the well-being of all of the people rather than today’s equivalent of directing investment to ensure the wealth of the top 10% is preserved first and foremost.
- Scandanavia today and West Germany of 40 years – prosperous, equitable systems.
- Outside of the West, there are cultures that place spiritual development above an insatiable desire for wealth creation.
Interesting, but not really anything solid to get my hands around, when it comes to specific systems to ensure the "democracy" that you are espousing.
The main thing I see in your complaints is a difference in moral weight you wish to give inequality of financial outcomes. I don't disagree, in theory, with the desire to achieve such a society, I just don't see anything self-sustaining in the world that gives you such an idealistic society. We can talk in detail about the Scandinavian models, if you wish, as that is the one most often given as examples.
I am most interested in the specific changes - what are the programs, or basic changes in infrastructure of the current capitalistic/democractic system that you would have that would ensure the society you wish to have?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
How to bring about this better system:
Bear in mind, the better system is a genuinely democratic government administered by an elected group of servants.
This sounds amazingly like how I see the current West and US. The disagreement appears to be how you define "genuine", "democratic" and "elected group of servants".
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
British domestic politics
The current government and modern day politics must be reined in. To achieve this, the political landscape has to change. Those who oppose the market driven society will be well served by forming a political movement – this would include Trade Unionists, The Green Party, Socialists, members of the Labour Party who have had enough of the exploitation (there are plenty of them), Liberal Democrats, Respect Party, Independents, anti-globalisation supporters etc. It would be useful to put aside their comparatively insignificant differences and form a movement based around democratic values of social responsibility and equal opportunities. It has been done before. The British Labour Party changed the political landscape in the 1880s onwards when various parties formed to gain representation for workers (around 70% of the population). Communists, skilled workers, the unemployed, Christian Socialists, philanthropists etc all put aside their differences and formed a political movement aimed at representation for the working-classes. The gains made in 60 years are quite possibly unique world-wide (without resorting to violence) – universal enfranchisement, universal health service and social provision, clearance of slum dwellings, housing fit for people etc. We’ve done it before in Britain, it can be done again.
International politics
In order to maintain a balance around the world and prevent the spread of the market economy at the detriment of all else, there needs to be a counter to US hegemony. The US government has been overthrowing governments and installing regimes friendly to US business interests for a long time, regardless of the resulting chaos. The clash of cultures viewpoint is bordering on the ridiculous. I appreciate that many Americans don’t support these notions, but the government does, so it’s time for someone to step forward as a counter to US imperialism.
A democratic British government would be well served by breaking all ties with the US government and going all out to forge links with Europe, regardless of any short-term negative economic consequences. Soul over money. It’s time for the EU nations to sort ourselves out and realise that we have common values which bind us together – particularly democracy – and these common values are being threatened by the undemocratic US government and the current undemocratic British government.
You admit that capitalism is a pillar of democracy. You claim that no such thing as "real democracy" exist. Yet, you make claim here that the UK shares those very values and should band together against the US, as if the US doesn't also share those values.
I think this exposes your very real bias against the US, but not because it isn't "free", but simply because in your world, capitalism is inherently immoral.
Your proposed "coming together" of like-minded groups for the most part oppose free markets, and capitalism. How do you square this with your earlier comments "Granted, a liberal economic system is a pillar of democracy" ?
If you believe that a liberal economic system is a pillar of demcracy, yet you wish to grow a party of people who don't believe in a liberal economic system - how can you see any way that such a system will then be any sort of "democracy"?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The EU has the potential to use its collective influence to rein in the US government. The most dangerous government on the planet right now is the US government, so needs must. If US corporations threaten to invest elsewhere, then it’s a small price to pay for social responsibility. The key for the EU should not be establishing power bases with anyone such as Russia, the US, China or anyone - policy should be based around democracy and social responsibility, never mind realpolitik.
As an example, if Britain had thrown its weight behind the EU in opposing Iraq rather than kow-towing to the US government in exchange for a few oil contracts, then the deaths of hundreds of thousands and displacement of millions in Iraq may have been avoided. The US government may have thought twice where on their own.
Your assumptions that I disagree with:
1. The US is evil, corrupt and unfree.
2. Realpolitik is bad.
3. The Iraq war is simply about economics.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Rein in corporations
There are loads of ways of doing this, simple examples include: making social responsibility the priority through performance measurement, reporting and incentives (as opposed to wealth creation), nationalise auditing to prevent the likes of Enron buying the auditors, insist the likes of Murdoch are referred to The Competitions Commission rather than allow them to build a media empire.
Education
The corporation takeover is a silent takeover. Most people don’t realise they have been disenfranchised. Whichever way you vote at the next election it is a vote for market interests – there is no choice (with the exception of opting out of society).
Educating people to understand the modern Western world is easier said than done because corporations will not sanction education aimed at opening peoples’ eyes – their idea of education is pushing children down the road of corporate flesh. It will have to be done through self-education and people need to take personal responsibility. Anyone with a brain cell can see something is wrong – do some research – there’s enough info in the public domain to see the wider picture, despite the misinformation, propaganda, red-herrings and lies.
In all honesty, this is the area most likely to prop up the current system. It boils down to people being prepared to investigate, keep an open mind and consider the unpalatable.
I don't necessarily disagree, but really don't have the time to go into a lot of detail.
I think you might be better served in your thinking, if you contemplate "freedom" and "corporations" and a lot of other social power constructs in a system in which you have discrete individual sources of power, and how to better balance them. I will agree that over time there has been a wider aggregation of power into centralized structures of society, and I generally find this a bad thing.
But I also think there are some countervailing structures that may, over time and with encouragement, overcome this centralization, in particular the power that the web gives in the market to smaller groups and individuals. Nano-tech is also has some interesting possibilities.
I think those discussions are a more fruitful avenue of discussion and activitism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Why is the democratic system not in place:
Illusion of freedom:
Many think they are free because they can buy a big TV, or a bigger house, or choose to holiday in Burma or China.
In reality, you go to work when the corporations say you go to work, the CEOs and execs take the lion’s share of the reward from your labour, you are powerless to impose your will – whether it be Iraq, closing the borders, or better working conditions. The government can lie to the people, forge documents and send an army into a country in the name of the people and set about killing and displacing people. Where there is dissatisfaction, then there’s The Patriot Act, ID cards, detention without a trial to nip in the bud any outbreak of civil disobedience.
This isn’t freedom, but people have bought the illusion and so remain temporarily content.
There are other crucial factors underpinning this illusion: a sub-standard education, nationalism, propaganda, lies, fascist state control (among others).
US hegemony and supporting acts such as the British government
The US government has the power and wealth to push their vision around the world and they have done it without much challenge, just as European monarchies and governments held the power for centuries. This is the vision of a global market society where corporations are the new monarchs backing violence and intimidation to support their ends.
In a nutshell, US domination has allowed the US government to go about its business unchecked, but the time may be nearing when enough people are getting pissed off with the US government to start putting some checks in place.
I'd very much like to discuss in depth your definition of "not free" and "free". It appears that you both disclaim and then claim that economic class is the basis of freedom. I'm not sure you can have it both ways.
In other words, the world you envision is one based on a common level of economic achievement, but then you decry economic achievement as the basis of "freedom".
Seems to me, you can't have it both ways.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Firmhand, some food for thought there. I’m sure you’ll do me the courtesy of returning the favour with answers and explanations to the following:
1. What is more important: wealth creation or equal opportunity?
I think they are linked to such an extent that they are close to the same thing. Without wealth, or the creation of it, then equal opportunity is an illusion. Without equal opportunity, wealth creation becomes skewed and less effective.
2. Do you believe US foreign policy is undemocratic? Reference to Iran, Guatemala, Venezuala, Brazil, Iraq and Nicaragua will be useful here.
In general, whether or not US policy is "undemocratic" isn't really the main issue. The question is "is it effective". Of course, you might ask what "effective" means. I'd say the first requirement for free markets is order and security. These are two things required for the smooth functioning of a capitalistic system.
The Cold War was a very basic assault on the free market system, and a conflict in which the very survival of both capitalistic and democratic systems was in question, and under assault. You can certainly question any individual act that the US and it's allies may have taken. Discussion and free disagreement with policy is a very basic part of the democratic system.
Hindsight is also just wonderful. Now, almost two decades after the collapse of the Soviet system, you can easily condemn certain US actions as unnecessary and counter-productive. You may even be correct.
That doesn't take away from the very real threat at the time, nor does it place those actions into any context for better understanding.
3. Do you believe US society is undemocratic? Reference to the power of your corporations will be useful here.
No, I do not believe that US society is undemocratic. I actually believe that most European societies could better be described as undemocratic, in comparision to US society in general.
The thing about "freedom" is that it is messy. It doesn't guarantee equality of outcomes, which is what you seem to desire. It should only give an opportunity for success, not guarantee success.
This is the hard part for many people, and I can understand why, but the freedom to fail is what drives the need to succeed. Take away the ability for people to not succeed, and you take away a very important part of the human spirit.
4. Do you believe equal opportunity and mass participation is possible in any society?
Yes. To an extent.
5. Do you believe corporations are the new monarchs? An explanation and your approval/disapproval will be useful.
No, I do not. I do think that the power of corporations is an important issue, which I very briefly discuss.
6. Is your personal wealth more important than the life of an Iraqi? i.e. on another thread you said US foreign policy should serve Americans, regardless of the consequences. Why do you believe you should not respect the wishes of sovereign nations, and what exactly is it that makes your interests more important than life?
Please reference my thread "What is the monetary cost of a life?"
Here, I believe we are walking into deep moral issues, and some requirements to see a larger picture that some people do not wish to address for reasons of moral blindness or fear.
I don't see the US's action in Iraq as primarily one of financial considerations. If it were, we could have approached it much differently, and at much less cost to ourselves in money, and in lost human lives. Your (and others) belief is a function of a will to believe and a skewed understanding of a lot of issues, that I don't think you can address in one simple post, or even a thread.
But I'll try. 
1. "Freedom" and "capitalism" are intertwined.
2. A world system which embraces capitalism will favor other systems which you can largely group under an umbrella of "democracy" - increased individual freedoms.
3. The first order of business for capitalism is order, and an adherence to the rule of law.
4. Middle Eastern societies, overall, are not based on the rule of law, but on strong men, tribes, and religious beliefs that do not favor the type of order that is conducive to greater individual freedom and the reinforcing capitalist system.
5. However, until those societies actually threatened the stability of the world capitalist system, they were "free" to work out their own destiny, culture and society.
6. As part of their "freedom of cultural choice", a certain active portion of that culture has choosen to oppose the basics of the Western world i.e. secularism, democracy and capitalism through death, destruction, terrorism etc.
7. The US's actions in Iraq are an attempt to reorder the basis of Middle Eastern society, by demonstrating that a capitalistic, non-religious-based, rule-of-law-based society can exist and prosper in their culture milieu.
8. The US (and all other Western capitalistic democracies) will benefit from such a successful change, by removing one of the fundamental issues that drives the Islamic terrorists and increasing global markets.
9. The reording of a society in such a drastic way is rarely done without opposition. The tools and methods required, therefore, will (and do) require force and the short-term unhappiness of some people.
When you attempt to draw a simple analogy between the importance of my "personal wealth" and "the life of an Iraqi", it is a false choice, based on a simplification of the issues at stake.
7. Do you buy into the notion of a clash of civilisations? Do you see the Muslim world as inferior to the Christian world?
No. No. However, I do see Islam as less conducive to a free market, rights based society. Not impossible to have, but their culture and religion make it more difficult to achieve. I see your question as a loaded one, again based on a simplified understanding of the issues.
8. Do you believe the US has the right to impose its market values around the world?
Yes. Isn't that exactly what you advocate, but from the opposite side of the ideological table?
9. Does it then follow that you believe in the suppression of ideas?
Yes. Not all ideas are equal.
10. Do you believe capitalism and democracy are the same thing?
Answered several times.
There's a lot of material I left uncovered, NG, but I think this is a pretty good response. We can certainly focus in any some of the issues if you wish, but my point of this thread really still hasn't been answered i.e. What are the concrete programs, agencies or changes required for a "left-based" model of a society to work better than the current Western Liberal Democratic system?
It seems to boil down to a basic agreement that the current system isn't all bad ... just that the focus and moral decisions that are made aren't the ones that most "lefties" would prefer.
I can honor that. I can understand that. But I see nothing new under the sun, from the Marxist-Leninist beliefs, either.
Personally, I think one of the major requirements is the return to basic philosophical underpinning inherent in Christianity (not necessarily a return to the power of the church in political or economic life, as an institution).
I've said before that I believe that we are all captives to our own societies basic moral beliefs, and in the West, that means Christianity.
I also believe that the most likely path to the type of society that many of you mentioned could be achieved with a balance between capitalism, democracy, and a moral system strongly rooted in basic Christian morality. It is this morality that is the chafing point for many on the left, which as a whole seems to condemn Christianity as a force of evil in the world.
But the basic tenants of Christianity are the very things that they say they wish to see active and stronger in the world. Yet they seem intent on trying to form a "new morality" based on .... something else. Anything else.
The problem with coming up with a "new morality" that so many seem to wish for is that it's been tried before. The "New Soviet Man" was the result, along with tryanny, economic privation and the loss of most all human rights in comparison to the capitalistic democratic West. I find it difficult to conceive of good logical reasons for many to still advocate such a system.
FirmKY
< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 4/15/2007 6:04:03 PM >
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: "Better alternative establishments" and t... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread