[Author's note: this is a "best of" blog from my old blog site. I really am trying to get back into the swing of blogging, but grading finals and papers seems to be getting in the way! For those of you who have read it already, feel free to revisit or not. And if I have a new generation of readers, welcome to my world... B]
----------------------------------------------
(Original post November '05)
I’ve been kicking around an idea for some time now, and this seems as good a time as any to go public with it. Comments/thoughts are welcome! (and since this is a public blog...)
Suggestion: the United States is not a "capitalist democracy," but is rather a "corporatist plutocracy." This may beg the question of whether we ever were really either capitalist or democratic, but regardless I think corporatist and plutocratic are better definers today.
Some of you may think this is insane, while others may see it as self-evident and respond with "so what's the problem?" I actually think it is a VERY important distinction. If we are NOT a capitalist democracy, then the people of this country are being fooled and/or lied to every day when the principles and ideals of capitalism and democracy are used as rationales for public action -- and almost every politician of both parties, along with much of the press, either explicitly or implicitly assume these ideals every day.
By way of definition, I am assuming that capitalism is the ideal expressed by Adam Smith, that every individual has a right and desire to increase their own wealth, and they should be at liberty to do this in an open, competitive process, SO LONG AS they don't hurt anyone else or trample on anyone else's liberty while doing this. When applied to governmental policy, under a capitalist system the government should be primarily interested (at least economically) in ensuring fair play and open competition in the economic system, and in making sure that no person hurts another person (at least not without their permission) during economic transactions. btw, I’m not explicitly defending capitalism here, which could be another whole thread – I’m just stating that the US is allegedly capitalistic. Democracy then is a system of government in which each person has an equal ability to take part in the decision-making process, either personally (which rarely happens and arguably doesn't work very well when it does, see California...) or through their elected representatives who a) represent their interests, and b) can be replaced intermittently when they do not.
That being said, I define corporatism as an economic system in which big business is seen as the most important component, driving the economy and leading to the best “good” for everyone (growing jobs, trickle down, etc.) A government that values corporatism will thus do things to benefit big business, sometimes to the detriment of other businesses, individuals, and/or competition. A plutocracy then, in the classic sense, is rule by and/or for the wealthy. Note that this does not need to be some cabalistic meeting of rich people in dark rooms wearing disguises or funny hats, or even leaders selected solely by those with more than x dollars (with x being a huge amount!) – plutocracy can happen anytime that government policies are disproportionately controlled by the rich, and this is typically evident when government policies disproportionately benefit the rich. Plutocracy in practice is unlikely to be blatant, but it can be seen in the end results, and then traced back through things like campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, rich and/or connected politicians, etc.
And this leads to the problem – corporatism in practice is nearly the exact opposite of capitalism – in fact, I can argue (but won’t here) that socialism is more compatible with capitalism (its possible to have a capitalist society with large elements of socialism, e.g. most of Europe). But if corporatism causes government to do things for the benefit of one group that don’t benefit others equally, and if corporatism does NOT foster competition (or at least leave it alone when it isn’t broken), then corporatism is almost by definition anti-capitalist. This is the key part that I think is totally unclear to pretty much all Americans – what’s good for corporations is NOT good capitalism, and in fact probably takes away from the liberty of individuals who are not involved with the corporations that the government is benefiting! For example, when was the last time you heard about the government fostering competition, versus the last time you heard about the government giving a hand out to some business interest or even to a specific company???
On the plutocracy side, I think this is almost self-evident at this point. Most people will pretty freely acknowledge that the rich have more rights and privileges in our society, and clearly more political power.
Something to think about for anyone who thinks the American system of government and way of life is either a good thing, or at least the best thing out there...
-----------------------------
Update, December '08: please note that our recent election has not changed my perspective on this in the least. I hold out minor hope that things will get better, but think its more likely that on issues of corporatism and plutocracy, the new boss will be different than the old boss, but not necessarily better. But I very much hope I'm wrong on this one!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Well tonight thank god its them, instead of you
“Well tonight thank god its them, instead of you”
This is the song line that I probably think of most from the Thanksgiving to Christmas season. I think of the line as an ironic and sad thing, but ultimately in a good way. Most of the people reading this probably don’t remember Band Aid I as anything beyond rock history, but I clearly remember the first time I heard that line. And I remember thinking “what the hell does that mean?”
Over time, I learned that the line caused contention between Bono (who sang it) and Sir Bob Geldof (who wrote it). There seems to be a lot of confusion even about the argument those two had, but that’s not the point. The question is, how could Bono (who has since become the very positive poster child for humanitarian do-gooders who choose to NOT remain anonymous) sing that? What could it mean?
I’m not sure about the original intent, but I know how I choose to view it – its irony – plain and not at all simple.
Its ironic that someone would thank their god that someone else is in pain and dying, but that they are ok. Of course, its ironic at an entirely different level that someone would choose to worship a god who could allow this to happen to other people. And its particularly ironic that many people in the rich, industrialized countries probably didn’t get the irony. I’m afraid that there actually ARE people out there who pray that way – “god, please help the poor, suffering people in Africa, and thank you for not making me one of them.”
And this is all particularly ironic because the song was NOT about what some unseen god did to the poor, starving people in Africa and elsewhere in the world. When taken properly, this song is about the need to HELP these people.
Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, a great thing about the winter holiday season can be the focus on giving. Giving thanks (to whomever you choose). Giving gifts (not just this year’s newest e-toy). And thinking of others. Which, if you choose to be a human being who looks beyond yourself, may also translate into helping others.
By the way, in every religion that I know of, the “god” in question wants human beings to do good things – he/she/it doesn’t usually do things for them.
So I hope you give to your favorite charity. Perhaps plant a tree. Or volunteer at a place that provides necessities to those less fortunate. And beyond all that, inform yourself. And when you get more information, tell others. Do something yourself, let that serve as an example to others, and it probably doesn’t hurt to throw a little guilt into the mix if it will bring someone else on board to help.
Because there’s nothing wrong with appreciating what you have, and even being thankful for the fact that you are not suffering. But there is something right about going out after that and giving at least a little back to those who were born into circumstances less fortunate than yours, or who fell into a less fortunate path.
This is the song line that I probably think of most from the Thanksgiving to Christmas season. I think of the line as an ironic and sad thing, but ultimately in a good way. Most of the people reading this probably don’t remember Band Aid I as anything beyond rock history, but I clearly remember the first time I heard that line. And I remember thinking “what the hell does that mean?”
Over time, I learned that the line caused contention between Bono (who sang it) and Sir Bob Geldof (who wrote it). There seems to be a lot of confusion even about the argument those two had, but that’s not the point. The question is, how could Bono (who has since become the very positive poster child for humanitarian do-gooders who choose to NOT remain anonymous) sing that? What could it mean?
I’m not sure about the original intent, but I know how I choose to view it – its irony – plain and not at all simple.
Its ironic that someone would thank their god that someone else is in pain and dying, but that they are ok. Of course, its ironic at an entirely different level that someone would choose to worship a god who could allow this to happen to other people. And its particularly ironic that many people in the rich, industrialized countries probably didn’t get the irony. I’m afraid that there actually ARE people out there who pray that way – “god, please help the poor, suffering people in Africa, and thank you for not making me one of them.”
And this is all particularly ironic because the song was NOT about what some unseen god did to the poor, starving people in Africa and elsewhere in the world. When taken properly, this song is about the need to HELP these people.
Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, a great thing about the winter holiday season can be the focus on giving. Giving thanks (to whomever you choose). Giving gifts (not just this year’s newest e-toy). And thinking of others. Which, if you choose to be a human being who looks beyond yourself, may also translate into helping others.
By the way, in every religion that I know of, the “god” in question wants human beings to do good things – he/she/it doesn’t usually do things for them.
So I hope you give to your favorite charity. Perhaps plant a tree. Or volunteer at a place that provides necessities to those less fortunate. And beyond all that, inform yourself. And when you get more information, tell others. Do something yourself, let that serve as an example to others, and it probably doesn’t hurt to throw a little guilt into the mix if it will bring someone else on board to help.
Because there’s nothing wrong with appreciating what you have, and even being thankful for the fact that you are not suffering. But there is something right about going out after that and giving at least a little back to those who were born into circumstances less fortunate than yours, or who fell into a less fortunate path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)