Quote:
Originally Posted by Venuswithapen
This is a sad, but incredibly real problem all around the world. What gets me is in countries like Britain, or the Unites States, where we are supposed to be ran on a "democratic" principle, a country for the people, by the people, kind of thing, it seems people aren't really involved in choosing how we spend our money. I challenge you to go into any given city and find 5,000 people, a number that is far from majority in most cities, that would choose to purchase yet another nuclear weapon over building a homeless shelter. I don't think it can be done, which brings me back to my point that it's not the nation choosing how it's money is spent, but the rich representative that have stock or ownership in the companies that we buy from..Some philosophers live by the fact that "the people are ignorant" and that if we were allowed to really vote or decide on how the country was ran, it would fall. I believe, however, that we are not given enough credit, and that we should be given more power in the government. Looking back to ancient greece and the way they ran their democracy, seemed to work pretty well. I feel if it became the people's right to have a larger say in how they country's money is spent we would find our country well taken care of. I believe our funding of other nations would suffer in the beginning, though not end, but that when we had gotten ourselves together, we would be able to help others in a way like never before.
|
Hello Venuswithapen.
I think you make some very intelligent suggestions here. Before I pick up on them directly however, if I may, I would first like to offer but a few qualifications to your comments. When you talk of 'democracy', it is critical in my view to realise that democracy is a form of government, and as such, exists because antagonistic interests exist in wider society. So-called democratic governments do not exist to meet the needs of people per se. Instead, they exist first and foremost (and necessarily so) to mitigate the worst effects of competing antagonistic class interests in a given society. If we insist on using the term democracy,(and I'm not criticising you personally here. I mean people in general) it is at best, I believe, a class democracy of which we speak. For we must always ask; 'Democracy for whom?'
I also think your reference to ancient Greece necessitates a cautious label. You are certainly correct, I believe, in suggesting that ancient Greece and the society thereof can teach us much as a species, and in relation to many aspects of human existence. But we must be guarded against either transposing a past state of affairs upon current happenings, or else vice versa. What I'm trying to say, is that we must understand the problems with which the ancient Greeks were wrestling wholly in the context of ancient Greece. Similarly, we must strive to understand contemporary problems by setting them firmly in the context of the here and now.
That said, you do place very searching ideas in the public domain. For example your suggestion about people having the ultimate say in their own affairs is an excellent point. After all, it is the people on the ground one would think, that know their real needs. During war time, the state conducting such a war doesn't simply guess what is needed, or else design some abstract scheme and then apply it to the issue to hand, thus hoping for the best. Instead, they consult with the commanding officers on the ground, with those in the heat of battle. If we truly began to do this on a major scale, this of course would signal the beginning of the end for capitalist relations of production, premised as they are on meeting the needs of the minority as opposed to the majority. As you rightly point out, it is indeed the rich representatives above all others, that embody the power of decision-making.
When you suggest that people in general are not given enough credit for their general role in society's affairs, this again is a fundamental point I believe. Perhaps I am departing somewhat from your own intended meaning here, but I interpret this as saying people are the real force in society as a whole. I couldn't agree more with this kind of idea. If it weren't for wider society, nothing would happen. It's that simple. It may be the minority rich who currently control flows of money, production decisions and the like across the western hemisphere and beyond, but without the input of the exploited masses, (i.e the majority) their wealth and decision-making would count for nothing. The rich and powerful need people to fight their wars, to manufacture their weapons, to transport their commodities, to endlessly transfer their money around the globe, to sweat in the sun as they stitch footballs for $1 per day so that such balls may be delivered to Manchester United football club and sold for £40 plus etc etc....
I also agree with your claim that should we ever be minded to adopt some of the ideas you suggest, then we might be better placed to "help others in a way like never before". Yes! But we must become conscious of the need for change, and on a massive scale before we are able to help people in such a manner. By this I mean helping people simply because they are human. Not because such an act stands to earn me a few dollars (or pounds sterling). In short, not helping people as a means to an end, namely to make money but instead as a end in itself.
Colin