I just read about the shelving of a glossy, monthly publication put out by the U.S. state department. The publication, Hi Magazine, was meant to influence the Arab world so that it would look more favorably on America. Its shelving obviously means that it failed in its mission of propagandize to the Arab world.
What came to mind as I read about this magazine's demise is the idea of bias. I was wondering whether this is an example of conservative bias. Is it conservative bias that did it in? After all it was put out by a conservative administration, anxious to gloss over its rock bottom image. Maybe bias is not the right word to use to explain its demise. But one definition of bias is the idea of being misleading. Another is the idea of something being warped. Why this magazine failed is because it appeared to be slanted and dishonest. The Arab world saw through its bias and ideology, finding it misleading and warped.
Conservative bias is what did in this magazine. Liberals never would have attempted this kind of bias. Liberal bias is more open faced and up front in comparison to conservative bias. Conservative bias in this case presented a whitewash and the Arab world saw it for what it was.
There is something sad about this publication, with its conservative viewpoint. It is sad that it was even considered necessary to publish such a glossy propaganda piece. There was a time when America didn't need this kind of sleazy self-promotion. America's image used to be a positive one. But since the neocons took control of the government, declared war on Iraq and have pushed their weight around, America's image has taken a beating around the world. There is a mean spiritedness, self-righteousness about the present conservative administration in Washington. And the world feels it. The sad thing, and also naive, is that these conservatives thought they could gloss over America's tarnished image with a glossy, bias publication.
A UCLA study has revealed the extent of the liberal bias in the media. It is overwhelmingly liberal. Conservatives say, see we told you so and say that this doesn't bode well for news gathering and reporting. According to them liberal bias in the press distorts social values and doesn't reflect the true nature of things. Well, I would say the opposite is true. I would say that the press is meant to be liberally biased because if it was conservatively biased the true facts about life wouldn't come out and we would have more useless publications like "Hi Magazine". It is the conservative bias in the press that does not reveal the true nature of things. That is why many of them want to take over the press, because they want to hide reality and paint pretty pictures instead.
The conservative bias and propagandizing displayed by the "Hi Magazine" episode reminds me of another time, of communist and totalitarian regimes. To get out their distorted, fabricated message those regimes would 'spin the word' and gloss over reality so as to remain in power. History shows that trying to corner and control politics and society in such a way inevitably fails. Not only do we have a front row seat viewing such a failure occurring again with the demise of Hi Magazine but also with the unravelling of the neoconservative agenda and ideology in Washington. Liberal bias may be exaggerated. But this exaggeration is really a defense mechanism against the persistent attempts of totalitarian, conservative bias to take control. Liberal bias, in a sense, is the guardian of the truth.
Bias in the media will always exist. Liberal bias, though, is preferable to conservative bias any day because it is more open and unvarnished. It also deals with the underbelly of society, something most conservatives would rather not expose. And by not wanting to expose reality, like the realities of Aids and homosexuality, conservative bias often has made things worse by covering things up, glossing them over and being in denial. Overall, liberal bias takes more kindly to being challenged about its claims than conservative bias, making for a more spirited dialogue.
The publication of Hi Magazine is an example of the naivety of conservative bias, thinking that it can improve the world through childish and parochial antics. To make the world better conservatives should be more outward and open-minded, like liberals and their bias.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
Hypocrisy - "Evolutionists for Stalin"
I just finished reading an article entitle "Evolutionists for Stalin". Sounds a lot like “Spring time for Hitler.”
The article blames Darwin's theory of evolution and its materialism for the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler. I find that a mighty stretch. I also find a liberal bashing behind the author's conclusion. As a traditional conservative he believes the bulk of societies ills are due to liberal ideas. Darwin's theory of evolution, in traditional conservative thinking, is a liberal idea, responsible for the atheism that led to fascism, tyranny and a whole host of other problems that have befallen humankind.
Hitler and Stalin acted on something Darwin theorized? One might just as well blame the second law of thermodynamics for their atrocities. That excuse was used in the French Revolution.
I had to read the article again because I was amazed at its conclusion. In a sense its argument passes the buck. It is not like traditional conservatives to blame a doctrine or theory for somebody’s criminal actions, as in this instance. Under conservative thinking people are supposed to be responsible for their own actions. According to conservatives, people are the source of their own criminality, not society in general. However, conservatives recently have been doing what they accuse liberals of, blaming a particular social order for their own failings.
I say that conservatives have failed and are hypocritical because they didn’t try hard enough to stop Hitler or Stalin in their nasty deeds. Conservatives are the ones who didn’t want to enter WW2, an entrance that could have tackled fascism and totalitarianism at the outset.
It was a conservative, a conservative!, Herbert Spencer, who first twisted Darwin’s theory and applied to the social order. He is the one who said that life is about 'the survival of the fittest', not Darwin, as many believe. He was the one, who drew it from Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory, as we know from reading here, traditional conservative detest. However, conservatives rallied around that mindset once, as a template for organizing society. As I said, that idea suited them once. They thought it would help create the ideal society. Now I understand that is not the way they think because that idea has caused too much brutality in the world. Sounds hypocritical to me.
Conservatives in America detest FDR for having introduced socialistic policies, in the form of the New Deal. He wanted to make a better society than the survival of the fittest conservative dogma offered. So he enacted the New Deal. With it he wanted to temper the harsh consequences of a survival of the fittest society. To this day conservative detest the New Deal because of its attempts to level the playing field between rich and poor. In contrast Hitler and Stalin continued their conservative thinking in their adhered to the conservative dogma of the survival of the fittest. On this side of the Atlantic many conservatives admired Hitler and insisted in not getting involved in WW2 to stop him. They thought he was creating a model society. Sounds hypocritical.
It is the conservatives in America who wanted to continue doing business with Hitler. In so doing they were essentially appeasing him. According to conservatives, appeasement is supposed to be a liberal failing. They always go on about how we liberals are appeasing the terrorists by criticizing the war in Iraq. And they continually point to Neville Chamberlain and how he appeased Hitler by negotiating with him instead of declaring war. Ironically, Chamberlain was a conservative. I guess this is another example of how hypocritical conservatives can be because they are also capable of appeasement.
It is farfetched to say that Darwinian thinking was responsible for Hitler and Stalin’s atrocities. It is as farfetched as thinking that Bush type thinking - hubrisic, self-righteous, unilateral, isolationist, was responsible for 9/11. Come to think of it, I do think that type of conservative thinking was responsible for 9/11. It brought it on with its mean-spiritedness, shallowness, lack of insight and ideological fervor.
I wonder what caused humankind’s atrocities before Darwin came along? I suspect conservatives might say they were caused in anticipation of Darwin.
The article blames Darwin's theory of evolution and its materialism for the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler. I find that a mighty stretch. I also find a liberal bashing behind the author's conclusion. As a traditional conservative he believes the bulk of societies ills are due to liberal ideas. Darwin's theory of evolution, in traditional conservative thinking, is a liberal idea, responsible for the atheism that led to fascism, tyranny and a whole host of other problems that have befallen humankind.
Hitler and Stalin acted on something Darwin theorized? One might just as well blame the second law of thermodynamics for their atrocities. That excuse was used in the French Revolution.
I had to read the article again because I was amazed at its conclusion. In a sense its argument passes the buck. It is not like traditional conservatives to blame a doctrine or theory for somebody’s criminal actions, as in this instance. Under conservative thinking people are supposed to be responsible for their own actions. According to conservatives, people are the source of their own criminality, not society in general. However, conservatives recently have been doing what they accuse liberals of, blaming a particular social order for their own failings.
I say that conservatives have failed and are hypocritical because they didn’t try hard enough to stop Hitler or Stalin in their nasty deeds. Conservatives are the ones who didn’t want to enter WW2, an entrance that could have tackled fascism and totalitarianism at the outset.
It was a conservative, a conservative!, Herbert Spencer, who first twisted Darwin’s theory and applied to the social order. He is the one who said that life is about 'the survival of the fittest', not Darwin, as many believe. He was the one, who drew it from Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory, as we know from reading here, traditional conservative detest. However, conservatives rallied around that mindset once, as a template for organizing society. As I said, that idea suited them once. They thought it would help create the ideal society. Now I understand that is not the way they think because that idea has caused too much brutality in the world. Sounds hypocritical to me.
Conservatives in America detest FDR for having introduced socialistic policies, in the form of the New Deal. He wanted to make a better society than the survival of the fittest conservative dogma offered. So he enacted the New Deal. With it he wanted to temper the harsh consequences of a survival of the fittest society. To this day conservative detest the New Deal because of its attempts to level the playing field between rich and poor. In contrast Hitler and Stalin continued their conservative thinking in their adhered to the conservative dogma of the survival of the fittest. On this side of the Atlantic many conservatives admired Hitler and insisted in not getting involved in WW2 to stop him. They thought he was creating a model society. Sounds hypocritical.
It is the conservatives in America who wanted to continue doing business with Hitler. In so doing they were essentially appeasing him. According to conservatives, appeasement is supposed to be a liberal failing. They always go on about how we liberals are appeasing the terrorists by criticizing the war in Iraq. And they continually point to Neville Chamberlain and how he appeased Hitler by negotiating with him instead of declaring war. Ironically, Chamberlain was a conservative. I guess this is another example of how hypocritical conservatives can be because they are also capable of appeasement.
It is farfetched to say that Darwinian thinking was responsible for Hitler and Stalin’s atrocities. It is as farfetched as thinking that Bush type thinking - hubrisic, self-righteous, unilateral, isolationist, was responsible for 9/11. Come to think of it, I do think that type of conservative thinking was responsible for 9/11. It brought it on with its mean-spiritedness, shallowness, lack of insight and ideological fervor.
I wonder what caused humankind’s atrocities before Darwin came along? I suspect conservatives might say they were caused in anticipation of Darwin.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Fascism
Lately there has been a lot of interest in fascism. It probably has to do with the mood and the circumstances of our times, what with the war in Iraq, the rise of fundamentalism, the concentration of power and the growing disparity between rich and poor.
I just read an article by Paul Bigioni entitled “Fascism then. Fascism Now?” The article is meant to be a warning because as the author says we seem to be repeating history. Bogioni writes about corporate monopolies, which he argues, are at the crux of contemporary fascism. He sees parallels between today’s monopolistic business practices and that of Mussolini and Hitler's fascistic practices, which led to W.W.II. He also sees Bush&Co’s pandering to the rich and its war on terrorism as signs of fascism. I agree with Bigioni that things aren’t as egalitarian, equal and open as they should be. However, I don’t think we are headed for the serious kind of fascism of the past, as Bigioni seems to think.
The word fascism is bandied around so freely as to sometime be meaningless. We often use it wrongly, such as when we feel alienated and put upon. I looked it up in wikipedia, the free Internet encyclopedia, and it said, “there is little agreement among historians, political scientists, and other scholars concerning the exact nature of fascism.” However, it is generally associated with authoritarianism where citizens are dominated by a specific political ideology, something Bigioni sees occurring. It certainly is contradictory to democracy.
Someone asked, “ How do we ferret out the fascism that is ingrained in our behavior”. I like the question because it acknowledges the fact that we are all capable of fascistic behavior in one way or another, like we are all capable of doing evil, unawares of course. Hence, I don't think you can truly ferret out fascism. It is an inherent trait. I also believe it is ingrained institutionally- a reflection of human nature, in the way we organize and govern ourselves. In democracy we have learned to contain and counter this ingrained behavior. We do it through perverse means, by encouraging competing fascisms. America is a good example of this. It is replete with competing fascisms. By cultivating competing fascisms in business and government, democracies keep the bigger fascism of the past in check. In democracies the fascism of the ‘state’ is kept in check by the fascism of the media, capitalism, special interests and an open, churning society. An example, Bush's Social Security fascistic reform was kept in check by the fascism and the special interest of Social Security’s beneficiaries.
I remember hearing somewhere that fascism meant justice. Somebody said that Mussolini might have coined the idea, as the combination of corporate and state power. Bigioni wrote something that perhaps supporting that idea: “Mussolini spoke of a ‘corporate’ society wherein the energy of the people would not be wasted on class struggle. The corporation would resolve all labour/management disputes; if they failed to do so, the fascist state would intervene.” Mussolini suggested that under fascism a class struggled would no longer exist. That may have been interpreted by some as a form of justice.
I learned that "fasces" was an ancient Roman symbol, a staff with a double-sided axe on top, which Mussolini appropriated in trying to recreate the grandeur and power of Rome's past. It may have become a symbol of justice, like a judge's gavel, I was told. Moreover, the fascist states of Mussolini and Hitler also used Roman type symbols and props profusely to portray their authority, like insignia's and emblems on marching staffs and event backdrops. As it happens, Bush&Co. uses such backdrops to convey its power and propagandize its messages, a behavior that mirrors past fascism behavior. Fascism also is about staged events like those Mussolini and Hitler held, events that don’t usually reflect reality, again, something that Bush&Co is guilty of. Fascism, then, is an 'ism ' that masks reality.
In his article Bigioni more than suggests that liberals are responsible for fascism. Conservatives tend to blame liberals for all sorts of societies ills. The argument goes that liberals are the ones who brought us socialism, which in turn spawned fascism. Today, Bigioni writes, neo-liberals are responsible for the rise in fascism. He writes, “Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labour and exalted capital”, capital meaning big business.
I thought those people he mentioned are conservatives. I guess conservatives are also capable of fascism.
I just read an article by Paul Bigioni entitled “Fascism then. Fascism Now?” The article is meant to be a warning because as the author says we seem to be repeating history. Bogioni writes about corporate monopolies, which he argues, are at the crux of contemporary fascism. He sees parallels between today’s monopolistic business practices and that of Mussolini and Hitler's fascistic practices, which led to W.W.II. He also sees Bush&Co’s pandering to the rich and its war on terrorism as signs of fascism. I agree with Bigioni that things aren’t as egalitarian, equal and open as they should be. However, I don’t think we are headed for the serious kind of fascism of the past, as Bigioni seems to think.
The word fascism is bandied around so freely as to sometime be meaningless. We often use it wrongly, such as when we feel alienated and put upon. I looked it up in wikipedia, the free Internet encyclopedia, and it said, “there is little agreement among historians, political scientists, and other scholars concerning the exact nature of fascism.” However, it is generally associated with authoritarianism where citizens are dominated by a specific political ideology, something Bigioni sees occurring. It certainly is contradictory to democracy.
Someone asked, “ How do we ferret out the fascism that is ingrained in our behavior”. I like the question because it acknowledges the fact that we are all capable of fascistic behavior in one way or another, like we are all capable of doing evil, unawares of course. Hence, I don't think you can truly ferret out fascism. It is an inherent trait. I also believe it is ingrained institutionally- a reflection of human nature, in the way we organize and govern ourselves. In democracy we have learned to contain and counter this ingrained behavior. We do it through perverse means, by encouraging competing fascisms. America is a good example of this. It is replete with competing fascisms. By cultivating competing fascisms in business and government, democracies keep the bigger fascism of the past in check. In democracies the fascism of the ‘state’ is kept in check by the fascism of the media, capitalism, special interests and an open, churning society. An example, Bush's Social Security fascistic reform was kept in check by the fascism and the special interest of Social Security’s beneficiaries.
I remember hearing somewhere that fascism meant justice. Somebody said that Mussolini might have coined the idea, as the combination of corporate and state power. Bigioni wrote something that perhaps supporting that idea: “Mussolini spoke of a ‘corporate’ society wherein the energy of the people would not be wasted on class struggle. The corporation would resolve all labour/management disputes; if they failed to do so, the fascist state would intervene.” Mussolini suggested that under fascism a class struggled would no longer exist. That may have been interpreted by some as a form of justice.
I learned that "fasces" was an ancient Roman symbol, a staff with a double-sided axe on top, which Mussolini appropriated in trying to recreate the grandeur and power of Rome's past. It may have become a symbol of justice, like a judge's gavel, I was told. Moreover, the fascist states of Mussolini and Hitler also used Roman type symbols and props profusely to portray their authority, like insignia's and emblems on marching staffs and event backdrops. As it happens, Bush&Co. uses such backdrops to convey its power and propagandize its messages, a behavior that mirrors past fascism behavior. Fascism also is about staged events like those Mussolini and Hitler held, events that don’t usually reflect reality, again, something that Bush&Co is guilty of. Fascism, then, is an 'ism ' that masks reality.
In his article Bigioni more than suggests that liberals are responsible for fascism. Conservatives tend to blame liberals for all sorts of societies ills. The argument goes that liberals are the ones who brought us socialism, which in turn spawned fascism. Today, Bigioni writes, neo-liberals are responsible for the rise in fascism. He writes, “Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labour and exalted capital”, capital meaning big business.
I thought those people he mentioned are conservatives. I guess conservatives are also capable of fascism.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Existentialism
I was debating about what to write on next. Should it be about existentialism or natural law. Then I thought, perhaps I should combine the two. I have the habit of combining odd things. (One odd combination was Hegel and thermodynamics.) Do they have anything in common? I'm not quite sure but let’s give it a try.
I became intrigued in existentialism after I heard one of our public figures refer to himself as an existentialist. The idea stayed with me and I couldn’t shake it off because, as I discover, I am also one. However, it is only until recently that I started delving deeper into the subject. I was reminded of it again by the recent 100th birthday of Jean-Paul Sartre, another self-professed existentialist.
There is a debate about whether Sartre coined the term existentialism. I was reading an article about existentialism and it said that it isn’t an easy philosophy to define or explain. There are all sorts of variables and varieties involved. One thing is certain, the individual is the central feature. I imagine existentialism comes from the idea of extension, the extension of oneself. Existentialism is about how one views oneself in the context of the world. In other words, the way I see the world is an extension of myself. If I imagine it to be flat and backwards, it is. If I imagine it to be round and progressive, it is. One conducts his/her life according to how they see it. Now, since everybody who is an existentialists is cognitively different, each extension of oneself is different. No wonder, then, the difficulty there is in defining what an existentialist is. I know that I am a different existentialist from the public figure I heard say he is. However, one thing that most existentialist believe is that the world is improvable.
One thing that is common to all existentialists is the idea of responsibility, that we are responsible for our lives and if we cause any wrong we should take responsibility for it. We are never victims. We are reflective but not to the point of undermining ourselves. Another thing I understand we have in common is that we are our own best friend. We have no heroes because we are our own hero.
Sartre said that “existence precedes and rules essence”. That sounds existentialist; saying that the individual is not born with an essence but creates its own essence as it goes along. In other words, we are what we make ourselves. Our nature is our nature, not one the world has imprinted on us.
However, I think there is a kind of arrogance in thinking existentially. There is an enlightened conceit about it. There is the believe that one is the product of oneself. I find that hard to believe in its totality because a lot of it has to do with circumstance, mainly with what kind of environment one is brought up in and what opportunities one has. I think one’s essence also has to do a lot with what preceded one. For instance, whether one comes from a bourgeois background or not has a bearing on it.
Kierkergaard (1813-1855), a Danish philosopher, was the founder of the idea of existentialism. I think he developed it to counter Hegel’s universal outlook, that the essence and being of human existence is derived from the collective. Kierkergaard believed this essence initially and fundamentally is derived from the individual, that the individual is the starting point from which ideas and existence flows, just like an atom is the first principle of existence. I tend to agree but I also believe that neither institution, individual or collective, can exist without the other. They feed off and help define the other.
My connecting existentialism and natural law will have to wait because I am still pondering it. I have a feeling, though, that existentialists draw from natural law to form their world view.
I became intrigued in existentialism after I heard one of our public figures refer to himself as an existentialist. The idea stayed with me and I couldn’t shake it off because, as I discover, I am also one. However, it is only until recently that I started delving deeper into the subject. I was reminded of it again by the recent 100th birthday of Jean-Paul Sartre, another self-professed existentialist.
There is a debate about whether Sartre coined the term existentialism. I was reading an article about existentialism and it said that it isn’t an easy philosophy to define or explain. There are all sorts of variables and varieties involved. One thing is certain, the individual is the central feature. I imagine existentialism comes from the idea of extension, the extension of oneself. Existentialism is about how one views oneself in the context of the world. In other words, the way I see the world is an extension of myself. If I imagine it to be flat and backwards, it is. If I imagine it to be round and progressive, it is. One conducts his/her life according to how they see it. Now, since everybody who is an existentialists is cognitively different, each extension of oneself is different. No wonder, then, the difficulty there is in defining what an existentialist is. I know that I am a different existentialist from the public figure I heard say he is. However, one thing that most existentialist believe is that the world is improvable.
One thing that is common to all existentialists is the idea of responsibility, that we are responsible for our lives and if we cause any wrong we should take responsibility for it. We are never victims. We are reflective but not to the point of undermining ourselves. Another thing I understand we have in common is that we are our own best friend. We have no heroes because we are our own hero.
Sartre said that “existence precedes and rules essence”. That sounds existentialist; saying that the individual is not born with an essence but creates its own essence as it goes along. In other words, we are what we make ourselves. Our nature is our nature, not one the world has imprinted on us.
However, I think there is a kind of arrogance in thinking existentially. There is an enlightened conceit about it. There is the believe that one is the product of oneself. I find that hard to believe in its totality because a lot of it has to do with circumstance, mainly with what kind of environment one is brought up in and what opportunities one has. I think one’s essence also has to do a lot with what preceded one. For instance, whether one comes from a bourgeois background or not has a bearing on it.
Kierkergaard (1813-1855), a Danish philosopher, was the founder of the idea of existentialism. I think he developed it to counter Hegel’s universal outlook, that the essence and being of human existence is derived from the collective. Kierkergaard believed this essence initially and fundamentally is derived from the individual, that the individual is the starting point from which ideas and existence flows, just like an atom is the first principle of existence. I tend to agree but I also believe that neither institution, individual or collective, can exist without the other. They feed off and help define the other.
My connecting existentialism and natural law will have to wait because I am still pondering it. I have a feeling, though, that existentialists draw from natural law to form their world view.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Polemos
When I first started thinking about the way of the world - the workings of the world - the idea of conflict entered my mind. I am not talking about warfare or violence but the conflict of ideas, institutions and the human struggle, like a competitive conflict. I sensed this phenomenon to be as natural an occurrence as night and day. What is more, I felt that our society fosters and cultivates this conflict as though it is a life force. Let’s see if I can explain and convey this idea.
I prefer to use the word polemics rather than conflict because it doesn’t have the same negative connotation. As it happens, polemics comes from the Greek word polemos which means conflict. To my ear polemics sounds more constructive, like in electricity. Electricity is a good example of what I mean. It has two conflicting poles or forces like in polemos. I wonder if the two are related. They do sort of have the same spelling. Anyway, the poles in electricity polemically engage each other to produce a current of energy. Can you visualize the polemic activity and the creation that is going on between the two poles? This is how I see polemics in our society, as a mechanism and a dynamo that propels and energizes us.
Polemics is a corollary of contradiction. Everything has it contradictory, opposite number without which nothing would or could exist. Things define themselves through opposites. Heraclitus, who originated the dialectic, a process based on polemos and contradictory opposites engaging each other, said "if you do away with contradiction or polemics (I added polemics) you do away with reality". He intuited this phenomenon more than 2500 ago in ancient Greece. “Heraclitus asks us to imagine the polemos is common to all things”, like contradiction, like in night/day, up/down and male/female.
.
Being argumentative comes to mind when polemics is mentioned. One is also being dialectic when one is being argumentative or polemic. When one is being any of these things one is usually electrifying and animating a situation. These type of exchanges are incremental and add to the proceedings of life. “Unity is found in the constant balancing of opposites”.
My last post was about liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is a human governance that embodies the social polemics I am talking about. There the liberal ideal of human organization is pitted against the democratic ideal, two ideals I distinguished in my last easy. The clash of these opposing ideals makes for a dynamic and meaningful form of governance. Without that kind of engagement there wouldn’t be the ‘creative tension’ that has become so essential in maintaining modern society. This is one reason why this form of governance has ascended to the top, because of its unique sense of polemics and it application.
I believe that polemics and politics are related. They sort of sound the same and work on the same principle as opposites. However, I had no means of connecting them until I discover Karl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general and military theorist, who made the connection for me. Two hundred years ago he said this, that “war is a continuation of politics by other means”. In that utterance Clausewitz joined polemics - war in Greek, and politics, recognizing them to be the same, satisfying me that they are one in the same. At least Clausewitz has give credence to my idea.
Today, for the most part, the polemics of politics has replaced the polemics of war. Politics has essentially supplanted war. Good thing that it has because humankind can no longer afford to be as warlike as it once was. It needed another outlet and a better way to resolve its differences. The world of today can not endure the equivalence of a WW2 and its more sophisticated weapons. Whereas once the conflict of war defining humankind, the polemics of politics now does. Polemics, however, is still essential for driving humankind as Hegel knew when he said, “Humankind needs conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake”, so it doesn't atrophy. Polemics stir and stimulate us. As Clausewitz might say today, politics is the continuation of war by other means. Politics is certainly more pragmatic and less destructive than war.
I am fond of saying, “Litigation creates Civilization”. Litigation is typically polemic, as socially and politically polemic as you can get. The core of Civilization is about methods, procedures and how to conduct ourselves. Litigation is the polemic exchange in which, through the clash of opposing interests and ideas, such as in liberal democracy, we have devised our civil code and social policies. Civilization was born from nothing. Polemics is what has given it its definition and substance. Whereas once warring polemics did most of Civilizations bidding, today, for obvious reasons, polemic politics has become its chief bidder. In our politics we have the quintessential polemics, liberal vs conservative. The Constitution of the U.S., the most admired piece of legislation, was hammered out through the litigation of both liberal and conservative positions. Litigation is also what upholds and dispenses it.
I prefer to use the word polemics rather than conflict because it doesn’t have the same negative connotation. As it happens, polemics comes from the Greek word polemos which means conflict. To my ear polemics sounds more constructive, like in electricity. Electricity is a good example of what I mean. It has two conflicting poles or forces like in polemos. I wonder if the two are related. They do sort of have the same spelling. Anyway, the poles in electricity polemically engage each other to produce a current of energy. Can you visualize the polemic activity and the creation that is going on between the two poles? This is how I see polemics in our society, as a mechanism and a dynamo that propels and energizes us.
Polemics is a corollary of contradiction. Everything has it contradictory, opposite number without which nothing would or could exist. Things define themselves through opposites. Heraclitus, who originated the dialectic, a process based on polemos and contradictory opposites engaging each other, said "if you do away with contradiction or polemics (I added polemics) you do away with reality". He intuited this phenomenon more than 2500 ago in ancient Greece. “Heraclitus asks us to imagine the polemos is common to all things”, like contradiction, like in night/day, up/down and male/female.
.
Being argumentative comes to mind when polemics is mentioned. One is also being dialectic when one is being argumentative or polemic. When one is being any of these things one is usually electrifying and animating a situation. These type of exchanges are incremental and add to the proceedings of life. “Unity is found in the constant balancing of opposites”.
My last post was about liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is a human governance that embodies the social polemics I am talking about. There the liberal ideal of human organization is pitted against the democratic ideal, two ideals I distinguished in my last easy. The clash of these opposing ideals makes for a dynamic and meaningful form of governance. Without that kind of engagement there wouldn’t be the ‘creative tension’ that has become so essential in maintaining modern society. This is one reason why this form of governance has ascended to the top, because of its unique sense of polemics and it application.
I believe that polemics and politics are related. They sort of sound the same and work on the same principle as opposites. However, I had no means of connecting them until I discover Karl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general and military theorist, who made the connection for me. Two hundred years ago he said this, that “war is a continuation of politics by other means”. In that utterance Clausewitz joined polemics - war in Greek, and politics, recognizing them to be the same, satisfying me that they are one in the same. At least Clausewitz has give credence to my idea.
Today, for the most part, the polemics of politics has replaced the polemics of war. Politics has essentially supplanted war. Good thing that it has because humankind can no longer afford to be as warlike as it once was. It needed another outlet and a better way to resolve its differences. The world of today can not endure the equivalence of a WW2 and its more sophisticated weapons. Whereas once the conflict of war defining humankind, the polemics of politics now does. Polemics, however, is still essential for driving humankind as Hegel knew when he said, “Humankind needs conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake”, so it doesn't atrophy. Polemics stir and stimulate us. As Clausewitz might say today, politics is the continuation of war by other means. Politics is certainly more pragmatic and less destructive than war.
I am fond of saying, “Litigation creates Civilization”. Litigation is typically polemic, as socially and politically polemic as you can get. The core of Civilization is about methods, procedures and how to conduct ourselves. Litigation is the polemic exchange in which, through the clash of opposing interests and ideas, such as in liberal democracy, we have devised our civil code and social policies. Civilization was born from nothing. Polemics is what has given it its definition and substance. Whereas once warring polemics did most of Civilizations bidding, today, for obvious reasons, polemic politics has become its chief bidder. In our politics we have the quintessential polemics, liberal vs conservative. The Constitution of the U.S., the most admired piece of legislation, was hammered out through the litigation of both liberal and conservative positions. Litigation is also what upholds and dispenses it.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Liberal Democracy II
I made the claim that our society under liberal democracy is the most successful ever. I was challenged on that statement. The challenger said that our society and liberal democracy have not been around long enough for us to judge whether it is the most successful or not. She wrote that “The longevity of Chinese society appears to have a pretty good claim for ‘most successful ever’ and they don't appear to have needed capitalism nor democracy to achieve this”.
I have to define what I mean by successful.
I see liberal democracy as the most successful form of human governance ever because it is the only one left standing. Its last major rival was communism whose reign and influence ended in the 1980s. No new alternatives have appeared since to challenge it, which means to me there is nowhere else for human governance to go. Liberal democracy is the culmination of centuries of experimentations on how to ideally govern humankind. From its beginning humankind has steadily grown closer and more connected. In its connectedness humankind has needed a uniform type of governance. Liberal democracy is with us because it is the only one up to that task. The fact that liberal democracy has not been fully implemented around the world is another matter. That is not a reflection on its viability or legitimacy. However, liberal democracy will always be a work in progress. That is the beauty of this system, that it is always growing and redefining itself so as to reflect the changing needs and aspirations of society, like no other system before. It is not a perfect system but considering the disposition and idiosyncrasies of humankind it is the best that can be had.
Another reason why it is the most successful is because it has empowered the most people. Liberal democracy has empowered more people with the bestowing of freedom and the right to purse self-interests than any system before. China may be a successful civilization but it rarely empowered anybody, until now. In embracing capitalism, China today is slowly empowering its citizens with the right to pursue their own self-interests, to be materialistic and property owners. With private property will follow democratic reforms, as it has in the West. It is already happening. The Chinese constitution was changed recently to guarantee some property rights. The Chinese are also becoming more vocal and demanding in their materialism. Many with means are now traveling freely and seeing the world, unlike before. That is success.
Liberal democracy is slowly imposing itself on China and making a difference. With the recent outbreaks of SARS and bird flue China has been forced to be more open to the world because it is no longer an isolated state. If it wants to continue to trade with the rest of the world and maintain its economy it has to be transparent on such matters as health. Ironically, with this new and necessary transparency its people are slowly gaining democracy because it opens a dialog between the Chinese government and its people. In such matters the government has to get the cooperation of its people and that procedure in itself is democratizing. Admittedly it is happening in baby steps. Nevertheless, it is happening.
Ironically, as China develops it will become more polluted and its citizens will gain more control over their lives. Citizens will demand more pollution controls, better health care and truthful answers. Those demands will translate into their having a greater voice in the running the country and their gaining a more accountable, transparent government.
Some people will ask, what is so great about empowering people? It’s a recipe for a more dysfunctional society, they’ll say. That’s an old argument. Instead, empowerment is one way of discouraging dictatorships. Moreover, from an economic stand point it is a win-win situation. For instance, it is from the empowerment of people to pursue self-interests that society finds the solutions to its needs and problems. (It is empowered individuals who discover the technologies and techniques that keep humanity alive and healthy, not governments.) In the past, China, under its total dictatorship, relied on committee rule to find and develop the solutions it needed to continue. In the long run that was a disaster. In time, though, some insightful Chinese leaders realized that the state alone could not meet the needs of its people and solve the problems the modern world imposed on them. They turned to capitalism to do that job, a first step towards liberal democracy.
I have to define what I mean by successful.
I see liberal democracy as the most successful form of human governance ever because it is the only one left standing. Its last major rival was communism whose reign and influence ended in the 1980s. No new alternatives have appeared since to challenge it, which means to me there is nowhere else for human governance to go. Liberal democracy is the culmination of centuries of experimentations on how to ideally govern humankind. From its beginning humankind has steadily grown closer and more connected. In its connectedness humankind has needed a uniform type of governance. Liberal democracy is with us because it is the only one up to that task. The fact that liberal democracy has not been fully implemented around the world is another matter. That is not a reflection on its viability or legitimacy. However, liberal democracy will always be a work in progress. That is the beauty of this system, that it is always growing and redefining itself so as to reflect the changing needs and aspirations of society, like no other system before. It is not a perfect system but considering the disposition and idiosyncrasies of humankind it is the best that can be had.
Another reason why it is the most successful is because it has empowered the most people. Liberal democracy has empowered more people with the bestowing of freedom and the right to purse self-interests than any system before. China may be a successful civilization but it rarely empowered anybody, until now. In embracing capitalism, China today is slowly empowering its citizens with the right to pursue their own self-interests, to be materialistic and property owners. With private property will follow democratic reforms, as it has in the West. It is already happening. The Chinese constitution was changed recently to guarantee some property rights. The Chinese are also becoming more vocal and demanding in their materialism. Many with means are now traveling freely and seeing the world, unlike before. That is success.
Liberal democracy is slowly imposing itself on China and making a difference. With the recent outbreaks of SARS and bird flue China has been forced to be more open to the world because it is no longer an isolated state. If it wants to continue to trade with the rest of the world and maintain its economy it has to be transparent on such matters as health. Ironically, with this new and necessary transparency its people are slowly gaining democracy because it opens a dialog between the Chinese government and its people. In such matters the government has to get the cooperation of its people and that procedure in itself is democratizing. Admittedly it is happening in baby steps. Nevertheless, it is happening.
Ironically, as China develops it will become more polluted and its citizens will gain more control over their lives. Citizens will demand more pollution controls, better health care and truthful answers. Those demands will translate into their having a greater voice in the running the country and their gaining a more accountable, transparent government.
Some people will ask, what is so great about empowering people? It’s a recipe for a more dysfunctional society, they’ll say. That’s an old argument. Instead, empowerment is one way of discouraging dictatorships. Moreover, from an economic stand point it is a win-win situation. For instance, it is from the empowerment of people to pursue self-interests that society finds the solutions to its needs and problems. (It is empowered individuals who discover the technologies and techniques that keep humanity alive and healthy, not governments.) In the past, China, under its total dictatorship, relied on committee rule to find and develop the solutions it needed to continue. In the long run that was a disaster. In time, though, some insightful Chinese leaders realized that the state alone could not meet the needs of its people and solve the problems the modern world imposed on them. They turned to capitalism to do that job, a first step towards liberal democracy.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Liberal Democracy
A political philosophy forum asked the question "How should society he organized, if at all?"
The last part of question is redundant because society needs organization. There would be no society if it wasn't organized.
It was during the Enlightenment that the question of how our society should be organized was first seriously posed. Today I think that question has been answered. Through the process of elimination the world has come to the realization that liberal democracy is the only alternative for organizing society in the modern world. The fact that it hasn't been fully implementation is another matter.
I don't think it is an accident that liberal democracy has percolated to the top.
Liberal democracy is the combination of two governing ideals. 'Liberal' comes from the idea of people being free to pursue their own self-interests. It is also associated with the free market system - capitalism. Democracy comes from the idea of the collective, that society should function as one and organize for the collective good.
It is easy to see how these two ideals may oppose each other and can be incompatible. However, this kind of opposition within organic, living systems is replete throughout the natural and physical world. Every system has its binary system in order to remain vital and reproductive. The human race has its male/female. A Day has day/night. The space we live in has up/down. Computing has the binary code of 1 and 0. The human brain has two hemispheres and electricity, the most famous binary system of all, has its two opposite poles of -/+. All those systems are alive and successful because of their bipolar nature. Everything that exists has two dimensions of itself. If this kind of makeup is essential for success in the natural, physical world why would it not also be true for human governance. The reason why we have evolved into a dualistic system of governance is because it is the only way, as nature has shown, to keep it alive and continuous.
A Russian philosopher by the name of Berdyaev, during the birth of the communist regime, foresaw that if you build a governing system based on a single theory it will inevitably end up in a dictatorship. As we see, he was right.
Communism and liberal democracy were the last of the governing rivals. The outcome of their rivalry determined how society should ultimately be organized. Today the ascendency of liberal democracy is filling the void left by the collapse of communism, a sign that there is no other alternative to what transpired.
The last part of question is redundant because society needs organization. There would be no society if it wasn't organized.
It was during the Enlightenment that the question of how our society should be organized was first seriously posed. Today I think that question has been answered. Through the process of elimination the world has come to the realization that liberal democracy is the only alternative for organizing society in the modern world. The fact that it hasn't been fully implementation is another matter.
I don't think it is an accident that liberal democracy has percolated to the top.
Liberal democracy is the combination of two governing ideals. 'Liberal' comes from the idea of people being free to pursue their own self-interests. It is also associated with the free market system - capitalism. Democracy comes from the idea of the collective, that society should function as one and organize for the collective good.
It is easy to see how these two ideals may oppose each other and can be incompatible. However, this kind of opposition within organic, living systems is replete throughout the natural and physical world. Every system has its binary system in order to remain vital and reproductive. The human race has its male/female. A Day has day/night. The space we live in has up/down. Computing has the binary code of 1 and 0. The human brain has two hemispheres and electricity, the most famous binary system of all, has its two opposite poles of -/+. All those systems are alive and successful because of their bipolar nature. Everything that exists has two dimensions of itself. If this kind of makeup is essential for success in the natural, physical world why would it not also be true for human governance. The reason why we have evolved into a dualistic system of governance is because it is the only way, as nature has shown, to keep it alive and continuous.
A Russian philosopher by the name of Berdyaev, during the birth of the communist regime, foresaw that if you build a governing system based on a single theory it will inevitably end up in a dictatorship. As we see, he was right.
Communism and liberal democracy were the last of the governing rivals. The outcome of their rivalry determined how society should ultimately be organized. Today the ascendency of liberal democracy is filling the void left by the collapse of communism, a sign that there is no other alternative to what transpired.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Democracy
The other day I encountered a woman who didn't believe we live in a democracy. I said to myself, obviously she is being very subjective. Then I wondered, what made her that way and I, on the other hand, to think that we do live in a democracy. Maybe we have different definitions for democracy. Some people thing it is just about voting and being heard. Others like me see it as far more complex, as a total environment, contingent on many things. And it has to be different and alternative things because it serves many masters.
Some people think we don't live in a democracy because voting doesn't accomplish or change anything. They feel they have no influence. They feel unappreciated and left out, alienated. I said to the woman that the ownership of property is a sign of democracy because when you own something one gets a measure of recognition and appreciation from the community. And you can speak out and demand things because of it. But, she said, apartment dwellers don't own property, so how do they get recognition. I said, well, they own property with respect to their labour. Nobody can take that away from you without something in return. That's democracy. Also, apartment dwellers have debts and owe money. And when people owe money they get recognition and respect from their lenders because lenders like to get their money back. It's tacit but that is also part of democracy.
Someone asked me to give some examples of the contingencies democracy depends on. I said I mention one, private property.
As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote: "Democracy is not possible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom". As we know, private property is not always tangible. There is one's labour, which I mentioned, and intellectual property. With the ownership of property comes a whole host of protective devices that feed into democracy. I think that the establishing and recognition of private property in places like Haiti would go a long way in helping establish democracy there.
So many of democracy's contingencies are negative things for most people, like capitalism, mass media, secularism, pluralism, utilitarianism and globalization. Nevertheless, those things reinforce it while sometimes appearing to erode it. Democracy is a perverse system.
Another thing that democracy is contingent on is a middle class. The middle class brings about the mass property ownership that the system of democracy depends on. Democracy is also contingent on security and stability. (That's one reason we need a central government, one that is effective and efficient.) That is one reason why it is going to be so difficult to establish democracy in Iraq, because of the lack of them.
It is also contingent on people like us, us being generations of people who have practiced and taken it for granted. It is in our blood. We don't have to think about it. Democracy is an esoteric enterprise. It has taken us a long time to develop and accept it.
Some people think we don't live in a democracy because voting doesn't accomplish or change anything. They feel they have no influence. They feel unappreciated and left out, alienated. I said to the woman that the ownership of property is a sign of democracy because when you own something one gets a measure of recognition and appreciation from the community. And you can speak out and demand things because of it. But, she said, apartment dwellers don't own property, so how do they get recognition. I said, well, they own property with respect to their labour. Nobody can take that away from you without something in return. That's democracy. Also, apartment dwellers have debts and owe money. And when people owe money they get recognition and respect from their lenders because lenders like to get their money back. It's tacit but that is also part of democracy.
Someone asked me to give some examples of the contingencies democracy depends on. I said I mention one, private property.
As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote: "Democracy is not possible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom". As we know, private property is not always tangible. There is one's labour, which I mentioned, and intellectual property. With the ownership of property comes a whole host of protective devices that feed into democracy. I think that the establishing and recognition of private property in places like Haiti would go a long way in helping establish democracy there.
So many of democracy's contingencies are negative things for most people, like capitalism, mass media, secularism, pluralism, utilitarianism and globalization. Nevertheless, those things reinforce it while sometimes appearing to erode it. Democracy is a perverse system.
Another thing that democracy is contingent on is a middle class. The middle class brings about the mass property ownership that the system of democracy depends on. Democracy is also contingent on security and stability. (That's one reason we need a central government, one that is effective and efficient.) That is one reason why it is going to be so difficult to establish democracy in Iraq, because of the lack of them.
It is also contingent on people like us, us being generations of people who have practiced and taken it for granted. It is in our blood. We don't have to think about it. Democracy is an esoteric enterprise. It has taken us a long time to develop and accept it.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
P.S.
I just read something that I think backs up my contention the conservative governance occurs within liberalism, written by a conservative: "The public supports conservative presidents so long as they leave alone the liberal programs that benefit them."
Thursday, October 20, 2005
"Pervasive Pessimism"
I just read an article “Pervasive Pessimism” by Jan Larson on the conservative blog site “The American Daily” (www.americandaily.com/article/9747). I took exception to it because I found it distorted, rabid and flagrantly wrong. I wrote Larson about it and this is what I said. I edited my original letter to be clearer:
Dear Mr. Larson,
As soon as I read you saying that liberals are naturally pessimistic I could hardly contain myself. I think you made that up just to be polemic. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a liberal and I am not a pessimist. However, neither am I the pollyanna, ***-eyed optimist you seem to be.
Conservative are optimists. [Ha!] If so, why are so many railing against [Larson equates criticism with pessimism] Bush's deficit spending, his choice of Miers for the Supreme Court, his making government bigger and his getting involved in a war that wasn't really necessary. Conservatives are pretty pessimistic about what has happened to the U.S. military. Conservative are pessimistic because Bush is not behaving like the conservative he said he was. And why are so many conservative hankering for "the good old days"? That seems like a pessimistic outlook to me.
[Anyway,] I think a dose of pessimism is good. [For instance,] sound economic policy is base more on pessimism than optimism, like the possibility of shortages, slowdowns, terrorist attacks and things just going plain wrong. That is why economics is called the "dismal science". It was a conservative that gave it that title - Thomas Carlyle.
You say that liberals are always being negative about this administration, but not offering any new ideas or solutions. Well, the liberal have come up with the best answers and here are conservative constantly knocking them down. When the liberals regain power they will continue with those great ideas they have put into place. There are only so many great and wise ideas that can be had in human governance and liberals have discovered most of them. But let's be optimistic, there is always room for improvement, even in the mind of a liberal.
--------------------------------------------
Larson’s big evidence that liberals are visceral pessimists is that they dominate the media. He says that the media of late has been full of news stories about disasters. (Like, they never happen.) Sadly, what I hear from him is that if conservatives dominated the media they would talk about only happy stories, not necessarily news, but warm fuzzy stories. Perhaps they would just mention that ‘silver lining’ that accompanies disasters. His other evidence that liberals are always pessimistic is their constant criticism of the President, for his starting an unnecessary war, for being slow in his response to natural disasters, for giving tax cuts to the rich, for gutting essential government programs and for chipping away at our democratic institutions. Larson doesn’t see any of the liberal criticism as necessary or constructive but just plain partisan bitching. I say, if liberals seem pessimistic it is because they see their nation being spoiled and tarnished by an extremely ideological, self-serving conservative movement.
Criticism, which Larson equates with pessimism, is an integral part of a vibrant and legitimate Democracy. Without criticism states have become dictatorships. In a Democracy if one feels that one party has virtually all the power, ramming its ideologically through without any means of legislative opposition, one naturally resorts to the only means one has to be noticed, being vocal and critical. Conservatives have acted that way in the past and rightly so. Perhaps liberals have been hyperbolic and shrilled in their criticism. But that’s because it has been the only means of getting the public’s and the media’s attention, a public and media that has been until now generally reluctant to criticize this administration. And liberals have been intimidated and gagged by this administration at every opportunity. There have been too many failures of late to remain uncritical. Another thing, when criticism is denied and stonewalled bad news and deeds tends to be swept under the proverbial rug. Criticism keeps democratic governments transparent and accountable. There is little transparency in this administration and that is a good reason for pessimism, all around.
Larson says that liberals just criticize and don't offer any new ideas. The new ideas liberals have had were implemented years ago. The liberal idea today is to continue to build on them. However, the conservatives are now rolling back many of them. Conservative new ideas are ‘hatchet-job’ ideas. They include ridiculous tax cuts for the rich, eliminating environmental protections, the gutting of government and international treaties, the dismantling of the UN, preemptive wars and the discrediting and marginalizing of the opposition. They literally would like to do away with the secular state. They want to turn back the clock to a supposedly better time. In this sense liberals are more realistic than conservatives.
I know of at least on pessimistic conservative, Pat Buchanan. He said something that I think is pretty pessimistic for him to say, that "The conservative movement has passed into history," That statement is pretty profound because it comes from one of America's chief conservative leaders. That statement confirms something I have always believed, that liberalism is the main force of Democracy, not conservatism. If we live in a democracy, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, we are all liberals - some with conservative tendencies, but all liberals. Liberalism holds the sway and that is noticeable in how BushCo is beginning to unravel, under its pressure for more openness and flexibility.
It begs the question, is there room for ultra, unabashed conservatism in a Democracy? I think only on the periphery, as a sort of counterweight or stopgap. If conservatives held total power their so-called optimism would kill us.
Dear Mr. Larson,
As soon as I read you saying that liberals are naturally pessimistic I could hardly contain myself. I think you made that up just to be polemic. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a liberal and I am not a pessimist. However, neither am I the pollyanna, ***-eyed optimist you seem to be.
Conservative are optimists. [Ha!] If so, why are so many railing against [Larson equates criticism with pessimism] Bush's deficit spending, his choice of Miers for the Supreme Court, his making government bigger and his getting involved in a war that wasn't really necessary. Conservatives are pretty pessimistic about what has happened to the U.S. military. Conservative are pessimistic because Bush is not behaving like the conservative he said he was. And why are so many conservative hankering for "the good old days"? That seems like a pessimistic outlook to me.
[Anyway,] I think a dose of pessimism is good. [For instance,] sound economic policy is base more on pessimism than optimism, like the possibility of shortages, slowdowns, terrorist attacks and things just going plain wrong. That is why economics is called the "dismal science". It was a conservative that gave it that title - Thomas Carlyle.
You say that liberals are always being negative about this administration, but not offering any new ideas or solutions. Well, the liberal have come up with the best answers and here are conservative constantly knocking them down. When the liberals regain power they will continue with those great ideas they have put into place. There are only so many great and wise ideas that can be had in human governance and liberals have discovered most of them. But let's be optimistic, there is always room for improvement, even in the mind of a liberal.
--------------------------------------------
Larson’s big evidence that liberals are visceral pessimists is that they dominate the media. He says that the media of late has been full of news stories about disasters. (Like, they never happen.) Sadly, what I hear from him is that if conservatives dominated the media they would talk about only happy stories, not necessarily news, but warm fuzzy stories. Perhaps they would just mention that ‘silver lining’ that accompanies disasters. His other evidence that liberals are always pessimistic is their constant criticism of the President, for his starting an unnecessary war, for being slow in his response to natural disasters, for giving tax cuts to the rich, for gutting essential government programs and for chipping away at our democratic institutions. Larson doesn’t see any of the liberal criticism as necessary or constructive but just plain partisan bitching. I say, if liberals seem pessimistic it is because they see their nation being spoiled and tarnished by an extremely ideological, self-serving conservative movement.
Criticism, which Larson equates with pessimism, is an integral part of a vibrant and legitimate Democracy. Without criticism states have become dictatorships. In a Democracy if one feels that one party has virtually all the power, ramming its ideologically through without any means of legislative opposition, one naturally resorts to the only means one has to be noticed, being vocal and critical. Conservatives have acted that way in the past and rightly so. Perhaps liberals have been hyperbolic and shrilled in their criticism. But that’s because it has been the only means of getting the public’s and the media’s attention, a public and media that has been until now generally reluctant to criticize this administration. And liberals have been intimidated and gagged by this administration at every opportunity. There have been too many failures of late to remain uncritical. Another thing, when criticism is denied and stonewalled bad news and deeds tends to be swept under the proverbial rug. Criticism keeps democratic governments transparent and accountable. There is little transparency in this administration and that is a good reason for pessimism, all around.
Larson says that liberals just criticize and don't offer any new ideas. The new ideas liberals have had were implemented years ago. The liberal idea today is to continue to build on them. However, the conservatives are now rolling back many of them. Conservative new ideas are ‘hatchet-job’ ideas. They include ridiculous tax cuts for the rich, eliminating environmental protections, the gutting of government and international treaties, the dismantling of the UN, preemptive wars and the discrediting and marginalizing of the opposition. They literally would like to do away with the secular state. They want to turn back the clock to a supposedly better time. In this sense liberals are more realistic than conservatives.
I know of at least on pessimistic conservative, Pat Buchanan. He said something that I think is pretty pessimistic for him to say, that "The conservative movement has passed into history," That statement is pretty profound because it comes from one of America's chief conservative leaders. That statement confirms something I have always believed, that liberalism is the main force of Democracy, not conservatism. If we live in a democracy, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, we are all liberals - some with conservative tendencies, but all liberals. Liberalism holds the sway and that is noticeable in how BushCo is beginning to unravel, under its pressure for more openness and flexibility.
It begs the question, is there room for ultra, unabashed conservatism in a Democracy? I think only on the periphery, as a sort of counterweight or stopgap. If conservatives held total power their so-called optimism would kill us.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Change and Conservatives
Roger Scruton, British writer and philosopher, wrote in his latest book about how he discovered his conservatism. He discovered it during the sociopolitical upheavals of the 60s. Many newly minted conservatives (neoconservatives) find or found their routes in that time. They see those years as a loss of innocence and civility, lost in the 'sexual revolution', the civil rights movement, feminism, students demanding social and academic change, affirmative action and so on. It was a heady time for change. Conservatives are traditionalists and don't like change. That is why Scruton became a conservative, because he didn't like the supposedly progressive changes that occurred in the 60s. He saw most of what transpired then as undermining Western values and way of life. He sees our civilization poorer for it today.
Scruton said Edmund Burke (1729-97), a political philosopher, helped him discover his conservatism. Conservatives point to Burke as the founder of modern conservative thought. However, I am still a little hazy about what Scruton learnt from Burke and what connects them as conservatives. Some aspects of their conservatism differ and are vague. Perhaps one connection is that Burke romanticized about aesthetics as does Scruton (for instance, the dislike for modernism) - an endeavor that seems to be a mark of conservatism. Another aspect of conservatism is a deep suspicion for abstract ideas, a suspicion both men share. Both men tend to see things in black and white - no nuancing - another sign of conservatism. Conservatives seem to me to be rigid and inflexible.
Burke said something interesting, "A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation." That is profound. But I would think it is also contradictory and confusing for conservative thinkers. Conservatives don't like change. Yet, they follow someone who said that you have to change in order to continue to be. It is probably from this contradictory statement that the expression comes, "you have to change to remain the same". It does sound like something a conservative might say as a way of squaring it with Burke’s contradiction.
Burke’s remark is certainly contradictory. But, then, it speaks to the contradictory nature of the world. It talks about change and conservation, two ideas that seem to oppose each other. The contradiction is that change is generally associated with undoing things rather than conserving them. However, I think most of us understand what is meant and how this contradiction works. For instance, if one doesn’t change the oil in one’s car engine, periodically, one isn’t conserving or protecting the workings of the engine. What Burke means is that if you don’t periodically change or reform the sociopolitical nature of the State, it will in time, under pressure from the forces of change, fall apart. Change is also needed to combat the atrophy that naturally undermines things. And this is what happened to the communist State; it died from atrophy and the lack of change that would have combated it. Communism didn’t have the means to change and thus lacked the means of conserving itself. In contrast, Democracy is with us and expanding because it has the structural means for change and reform. Democracy maintains itself through change and remaining flexible.
Burke doesn’t account for the origins of change. Why is it necessary for a state to change in order to conserve itself? Burke didn’t offer any empirical evidence for it. Perhaps, though, he got the idea from experiencing the French Revolution, knowing that the same thing had happened in England during its “Glorious Revolution”. In both cases these States, as they were, were toppled because they resisted change. They broke under pressure. Neither wanted to change their ways of governance, so they suffered the consequences. Each State would not relinquish any of its powers so the people could participate in their own governance. In both cases the stubbornness of the State in not wanting to change was the reason for its collapse. Perhaps it was from Burke's utterance that Hegel got the idea that history is determined by change. Burke's idea also may have led Darwin to his theory of evolution.
Conservatives must have a difficult time of it, living in this world that is always changing. Change is inevitable. New elements and circumstance are always entering into it, requiring change and accommodation. And there is something unsettling about their resistance to change because one would think that they believe it once was a perfect world, that is until so-called progress and liberals started mucking things up. Maybe they don’t think it was once a perfect world, but instead it was somehow complete, at equilibrium and couldn’t be improved on. They keep resisting but the world marches on, demanding change. They would like to go back to the “good old days”, if they ever existed, when women were women and men were men. Ironically, conservatives are responsible for a lot of the social changes they bluster about. That change has come in the form of a backlash, provoked by the years of their colonization and trying to reinvent the world. It is as a result of "chickens coming home to roost".
Historically, why do things change? There are two forms of change that have bearing on us. One is induced by the natural flux of the universe, such as changes in the day (day, night), the seasons, the weather and those caused by the natural forces. Our existence is essentially determined by those changes. But that is not the change conservatives like Scruton are talking about. He is talking about social and political change. And in many respects that change is as natural as the first. The problem is that Scruton doesn’t think so. It comes as natural as thinking. When humans began thinking, things began to change. Thinking begets thinking and thus change begets change. People always have wondered how things could be different. That wondering is followed by action, which in turn causes change. People get restless and that also causes change. People think they can improve their lot in life. And with all this thinking and changing there is bound to be a change of unintended consequences. This unintended change/consequence is perhaps what Scruton is really railing about.
However, resistance to change can be a good thing. It keeps and consummates the worthy social and political changes made. Liberals and progressives go forth and instigate necessary change, but conservatives are the ones who contain the change and keeping it, as they can, to a minimum. A sort of compromise is reached between liberals and conservatives and on it goes. Sometimes they find themselves changing positions on themselves. This is how our governing system developed and works. It takes both of them to create a workable and legitimate governing system, through the give and take of both. The toughest thing is reaching and maintaining a balance. Overall, I think we have achieved it
I think there is at least one thing Scruton and I can agree on, that there is little truth to the idea that “The more things change the more they remain the same. That is imaginary. Things never remain the same.
Scruton said Edmund Burke (1729-97), a political philosopher, helped him discover his conservatism. Conservatives point to Burke as the founder of modern conservative thought. However, I am still a little hazy about what Scruton learnt from Burke and what connects them as conservatives. Some aspects of their conservatism differ and are vague. Perhaps one connection is that Burke romanticized about aesthetics as does Scruton (for instance, the dislike for modernism) - an endeavor that seems to be a mark of conservatism. Another aspect of conservatism is a deep suspicion for abstract ideas, a suspicion both men share. Both men tend to see things in black and white - no nuancing - another sign of conservatism. Conservatives seem to me to be rigid and inflexible.
Burke said something interesting, "A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation." That is profound. But I would think it is also contradictory and confusing for conservative thinkers. Conservatives don't like change. Yet, they follow someone who said that you have to change in order to continue to be. It is probably from this contradictory statement that the expression comes, "you have to change to remain the same". It does sound like something a conservative might say as a way of squaring it with Burke’s contradiction.
Burke’s remark is certainly contradictory. But, then, it speaks to the contradictory nature of the world. It talks about change and conservation, two ideas that seem to oppose each other. The contradiction is that change is generally associated with undoing things rather than conserving them. However, I think most of us understand what is meant and how this contradiction works. For instance, if one doesn’t change the oil in one’s car engine, periodically, one isn’t conserving or protecting the workings of the engine. What Burke means is that if you don’t periodically change or reform the sociopolitical nature of the State, it will in time, under pressure from the forces of change, fall apart. Change is also needed to combat the atrophy that naturally undermines things. And this is what happened to the communist State; it died from atrophy and the lack of change that would have combated it. Communism didn’t have the means to change and thus lacked the means of conserving itself. In contrast, Democracy is with us and expanding because it has the structural means for change and reform. Democracy maintains itself through change and remaining flexible.
Burke doesn’t account for the origins of change. Why is it necessary for a state to change in order to conserve itself? Burke didn’t offer any empirical evidence for it. Perhaps, though, he got the idea from experiencing the French Revolution, knowing that the same thing had happened in England during its “Glorious Revolution”. In both cases these States, as they were, were toppled because they resisted change. They broke under pressure. Neither wanted to change their ways of governance, so they suffered the consequences. Each State would not relinquish any of its powers so the people could participate in their own governance. In both cases the stubbornness of the State in not wanting to change was the reason for its collapse. Perhaps it was from Burke's utterance that Hegel got the idea that history is determined by change. Burke's idea also may have led Darwin to his theory of evolution.
Conservatives must have a difficult time of it, living in this world that is always changing. Change is inevitable. New elements and circumstance are always entering into it, requiring change and accommodation. And there is something unsettling about their resistance to change because one would think that they believe it once was a perfect world, that is until so-called progress and liberals started mucking things up. Maybe they don’t think it was once a perfect world, but instead it was somehow complete, at equilibrium and couldn’t be improved on. They keep resisting but the world marches on, demanding change. They would like to go back to the “good old days”, if they ever existed, when women were women and men were men. Ironically, conservatives are responsible for a lot of the social changes they bluster about. That change has come in the form of a backlash, provoked by the years of their colonization and trying to reinvent the world. It is as a result of "chickens coming home to roost".
Historically, why do things change? There are two forms of change that have bearing on us. One is induced by the natural flux of the universe, such as changes in the day (day, night), the seasons, the weather and those caused by the natural forces. Our existence is essentially determined by those changes. But that is not the change conservatives like Scruton are talking about. He is talking about social and political change. And in many respects that change is as natural as the first. The problem is that Scruton doesn’t think so. It comes as natural as thinking. When humans began thinking, things began to change. Thinking begets thinking and thus change begets change. People always have wondered how things could be different. That wondering is followed by action, which in turn causes change. People get restless and that also causes change. People think they can improve their lot in life. And with all this thinking and changing there is bound to be a change of unintended consequences. This unintended change/consequence is perhaps what Scruton is really railing about.
However, resistance to change can be a good thing. It keeps and consummates the worthy social and political changes made. Liberals and progressives go forth and instigate necessary change, but conservatives are the ones who contain the change and keeping it, as they can, to a minimum. A sort of compromise is reached between liberals and conservatives and on it goes. Sometimes they find themselves changing positions on themselves. This is how our governing system developed and works. It takes both of them to create a workable and legitimate governing system, through the give and take of both. The toughest thing is reaching and maintaining a balance. Overall, I think we have achieved it
I think there is at least one thing Scruton and I can agree on, that there is little truth to the idea that “The more things change the more they remain the same. That is imaginary. Things never remain the same.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Ideology and "The End Of History"
One of my favorite books is "The End Of History" by Francis Fukuyama. I like it because its premise echoes something I sensed, that humankind ostensively has reached an end point in its "ideological evolution". This end point represents a general consensus on how, in the main, we should and ought to be governed. Fukuyama opined that this end point represents humankind's "final form of human government".
I think of "The End Of History" as a metaphor for acquired wisdom, about how we ultimately should and ought to govern ourselves. Experimentation in human governance is over. The basic principles are set, in economics and social policy, for governance in the modern world. I am thinking this is what Fukuyama meant by it. The title doesn't mean the end of History per se but the end of a particular history, of hard core political ideology. We know that History will not end as long as there are humans around to make it.
What drove Fukuyama to conclude that humankind had reached the final form of human government was the collapse of communism. That meant liberal democracy was the only alternative form of governance left in the world. Furthermore, as he pointed out, not only had liberal democracy triumphed over communism but also over all other forms of government known to humankind. Liberal democracy is a mix of capitalism - free market economics - and democracy. Fukuyama didn't used the term capitalism because of its negative connotation. The evidence that it is the last form of government is that all developed and developing nation around the world are employing its principles.
I am thinking of this book for another reason, because of what is happening in American today. As I see it, America and its citizens essential had reached a consensus and an equilibrium in its governance. A general agreement had been reached as to what people wanted and expected from their government. Extreme ideology in governance had been contained. However, things changed five years ago when a group of ideologues came to power. They were different from the breed that preceded them. They were determined to undo the policies and agencies that were well established and accepted by the general population. These ideologues told the people that government was bad and then proceed to gut it. They wanted to role back elements of government like affirmative action, progressive court rulings, treaties and environment policies. In diplomacy they didn't use the well-established method of the " carrot and the stick" to cajole others to their way of thinking. They just use the stick. Their ideology has been "our way or the highway". For some ideological reason they have want to dismantle a perfectly good social security system, one that generally has served the nation well. Their education and science agenda has made things worse, not better. Their neoconservative ideology has become a curse for the country and the world, and in the end I predict will be their undoing.
My point is this, that ideology has been reintroduced in American politics, making America more divisive and weaker than ever. Prior to this America was fairly united and balanced. The world looked upon America favorably. Prior to this, political ideology had not been mainstream. Cooperation was the way. But this administration has re-injected ideology into the political process. This administration thought they had sensed the pulse of the nation, America’s mood and what it really wanted. They thought wrong when they brought back old time ideology and started undermining the progressive governing gains made over them years.
Essential what Fukuyama said is that we have moved beyond fundamental ideological differences in politics. There is one goal, good and accountable governance for all. And America basically discovered how to do it. Obviously, though, this idea has been lost in America. But I am confident it will come back. Recent events signal that. Americans want a government that is transparent, that will help in a crisis, set mutually beneficial policies, look after the less fortunate and set a good example for the rest of the world.
I can see a silver lining in having this administration and its extreme ideology in power. Its severity and consequences is re-awaking and reminding the America people what they really cherish and want in their governance. Prior to this the American people had fallen asleep and were taking things for granted. They though they had arrived. Transparent and accountable government requires constant vigilance and electoral responsibility. This negative episode in American politics may again put America on the progressive track.
I think of "The End Of History" as a metaphor for acquired wisdom, about how we ultimately should and ought to govern ourselves. Experimentation in human governance is over. The basic principles are set, in economics and social policy, for governance in the modern world. I am thinking this is what Fukuyama meant by it. The title doesn't mean the end of History per se but the end of a particular history, of hard core political ideology. We know that History will not end as long as there are humans around to make it.
What drove Fukuyama to conclude that humankind had reached the final form of human government was the collapse of communism. That meant liberal democracy was the only alternative form of governance left in the world. Furthermore, as he pointed out, not only had liberal democracy triumphed over communism but also over all other forms of government known to humankind. Liberal democracy is a mix of capitalism - free market economics - and democracy. Fukuyama didn't used the term capitalism because of its negative connotation. The evidence that it is the last form of government is that all developed and developing nation around the world are employing its principles.
I am thinking of this book for another reason, because of what is happening in American today. As I see it, America and its citizens essential had reached a consensus and an equilibrium in its governance. A general agreement had been reached as to what people wanted and expected from their government. Extreme ideology in governance had been contained. However, things changed five years ago when a group of ideologues came to power. They were different from the breed that preceded them. They were determined to undo the policies and agencies that were well established and accepted by the general population. These ideologues told the people that government was bad and then proceed to gut it. They wanted to role back elements of government like affirmative action, progressive court rulings, treaties and environment policies. In diplomacy they didn't use the well-established method of the " carrot and the stick" to cajole others to their way of thinking. They just use the stick. Their ideology has been "our way or the highway". For some ideological reason they have want to dismantle a perfectly good social security system, one that generally has served the nation well. Their education and science agenda has made things worse, not better. Their neoconservative ideology has become a curse for the country and the world, and in the end I predict will be their undoing.
My point is this, that ideology has been reintroduced in American politics, making America more divisive and weaker than ever. Prior to this America was fairly united and balanced. The world looked upon America favorably. Prior to this, political ideology had not been mainstream. Cooperation was the way. But this administration has re-injected ideology into the political process. This administration thought they had sensed the pulse of the nation, America’s mood and what it really wanted. They thought wrong when they brought back old time ideology and started undermining the progressive governing gains made over them years.
Essential what Fukuyama said is that we have moved beyond fundamental ideological differences in politics. There is one goal, good and accountable governance for all. And America basically discovered how to do it. Obviously, though, this idea has been lost in America. But I am confident it will come back. Recent events signal that. Americans want a government that is transparent, that will help in a crisis, set mutually beneficial policies, look after the less fortunate and set a good example for the rest of the world.
I can see a silver lining in having this administration and its extreme ideology in power. Its severity and consequences is re-awaking and reminding the America people what they really cherish and want in their governance. Prior to this the American people had fallen asleep and were taking things for granted. They though they had arrived. Transparent and accountable government requires constant vigilance and electoral responsibility. This negative episode in American politics may again put America on the progressive track.
Friday, September 23, 2005
The Need for Good Governance.
For some time in Washington there has been this ideological notion that government is bad. This idea came into the main with Ronald Reagan who said that government wasn't the solution but the problem. Five years ago the ideologues that believe this took control of Washington and the federal government. And in that time they have managed to make their ideology reality.
Hurricane Katrina made us aware of the importance and necessity for a central government, as a central command system. However, the present government failed in its mission of oversight. But instead of acknowledging this failure of government, the ideologues said, see, we told you so. They told you that you can't or shouldn't depend on government in a pinch.
How convenient for the government haters. First they gut the government and then fill it with incompetent people and then tell us that they were right from the beginning. Government does stink. They did accomplish their self-fulfilling prophecy. Government stinks when you deliberately make it stink.
Government haters have told us that the private sector can do things better than the government can. Ironically they used Hurricane Katrina as an example. They point to the great effort Wal-Mart has made in giving people the basics. Wal-Mart made heroic efforts with truck loads and truck loads of stuff to save people as did other companies. However, what companies can do on their own is limited. They don't have the overview the government has. In the final analysis it is government that is needed to orchestrate and coordinate the momentous undertaking of infrastructure rebuilding.
The problem with companies doing the government's job is that self-interest eventually takes over and they may abandon the task. Companies can lose interest in a venture like rescuing and providing for the needy because there is no money to be made in it. Sometimes they go bankrupt and can't finish the task, so the government has to take over. Governments don't have financial investors and share holders who expect a profit at the end of the day. Governments have only the voters to answer to.
If the private sector and corporations are able to help and contribute we should remember who initially made it possible for them to do it and profit. It is government that created and maintains the environment in which companies can legitimately thrive. Without government it would be a free-for-all, an environment that eventually even companies couldn't survive in. Government is what keeps them, as best it can, being good corporate citizens, so they can benefit us all.
Corporations are not necessarily accountable. And we are not really surprised when they are not. But governments should be, especially in a democracy. However, the present government has decidedly been unaccountable and it can be because it has outflanked and marginalized the opposition. Also, in the past the opposition has been too timid to criticize. We should learn something from this.
One thing the Katrina catastrophe has shown us is that we need two healthy sectors to prolong live and society, the private sector and the public sector, working together in tandem. They keep each other in check and balance out each other. Government, though, because of their breadth and scope, should be first among equals.
Hurricane Katrina made us aware of the importance and necessity for a central government, as a central command system. However, the present government failed in its mission of oversight. But instead of acknowledging this failure of government, the ideologues said, see, we told you so. They told you that you can't or shouldn't depend on government in a pinch.
How convenient for the government haters. First they gut the government and then fill it with incompetent people and then tell us that they were right from the beginning. Government does stink. They did accomplish their self-fulfilling prophecy. Government stinks when you deliberately make it stink.
Government haters have told us that the private sector can do things better than the government can. Ironically they used Hurricane Katrina as an example. They point to the great effort Wal-Mart has made in giving people the basics. Wal-Mart made heroic efforts with truck loads and truck loads of stuff to save people as did other companies. However, what companies can do on their own is limited. They don't have the overview the government has. In the final analysis it is government that is needed to orchestrate and coordinate the momentous undertaking of infrastructure rebuilding.
The problem with companies doing the government's job is that self-interest eventually takes over and they may abandon the task. Companies can lose interest in a venture like rescuing and providing for the needy because there is no money to be made in it. Sometimes they go bankrupt and can't finish the task, so the government has to take over. Governments don't have financial investors and share holders who expect a profit at the end of the day. Governments have only the voters to answer to.
If the private sector and corporations are able to help and contribute we should remember who initially made it possible for them to do it and profit. It is government that created and maintains the environment in which companies can legitimately thrive. Without government it would be a free-for-all, an environment that eventually even companies couldn't survive in. Government is what keeps them, as best it can, being good corporate citizens, so they can benefit us all.
Corporations are not necessarily accountable. And we are not really surprised when they are not. But governments should be, especially in a democracy. However, the present government has decidedly been unaccountable and it can be because it has outflanked and marginalized the opposition. Also, in the past the opposition has been too timid to criticize. We should learn something from this.
One thing the Katrina catastrophe has shown us is that we need two healthy sectors to prolong live and society, the private sector and the public sector, working together in tandem. They keep each other in check and balance out each other. Government, though, because of their breadth and scope, should be first among equals.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Intelligent Design
Because of the debate that is going on about intelligent design I was wondering what Stephen Jay Gould, the famous paleontologist, would say about it. Then I recalled a letter I had published in Time Magazine in September 1999. The letter addressed a similar debate going on while Gould was alive. It was about the first time the Kansas board of education was thinking about whether to remove evolution from the curriculum:
"Stephen Jay Gould, in his viewpoint on the decision of the Kansas board of education to remove evolution from the state's science curriculum [Aug. 23], stated that we should be embarrassed by those who want to suppress the teaching of evolution. Nevertheless, we should be grateful to the Kansas board for the service it has rendered. It has instigated a debate in which we evolutionists can re-examine and reaffirm our beliefs and, in the process, educate. The controversy reminds us that America's greatness doesn't necessarily lie in the country's beliefs but in the discourse about them".
I think the same holds true with the present day debate .
"Stephen Jay Gould, in his viewpoint on the decision of the Kansas board of education to remove evolution from the state's science curriculum [Aug. 23], stated that we should be embarrassed by those who want to suppress the teaching of evolution. Nevertheless, we should be grateful to the Kansas board for the service it has rendered. It has instigated a debate in which we evolutionists can re-examine and reaffirm our beliefs and, in the process, educate. The controversy reminds us that America's greatness doesn't necessarily lie in the country's beliefs but in the discourse about them".
I think the same holds true with the present day debate .
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Capitalism
Why does capitalism exist instead of some other system? Why is capitalism so imperfect?
Capitalism has existed for at least 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution. In that time it has been seriously challenge by other systems, I mean seriously challenged, but it still stands. Not only does it stand, it has destroyed the competition. Why does it continue to reign when so many think it is such a bad system? Why is it the only economic system left in the world?
The reason I think it lives on, even though it is imperfect, is because it is the one system that has shaped itself to reflect the imperfect nature of humankind. Other systems failed because they didn't take into account human nature and its predisposition. Capitalism has molded itself to the human race. The abuses in capitalism reflect the abuses humans are capable of. However, and this will be hard for some to believe, capitalism works to temper and contain those abuses. It has done so in a cajoling manner whereas other systems, like communism, have forcefully tried, unsuccessfully, to mold us into something we are not. It works with our idiosyncrasies and irrationalities whereas other economic systems tried to end or stamp them out. Capitalism, simply, is the best system that can be had under the circumstance, considering humankind's obtuseness and intransigencies.
The idea that capitalism is truly laisser faire and unfettered is a misconception. We could not survive unfettered capitalism. It would be too high octane and dangerous to handle. If it were unfettered there would be many more calamities like Enron and depressions. In the end there would be nothing. If you think the environment is suffering now, with unfettered capitalism there wouldn’t be one. Why would capitalism destroy the very thing that gives it life, as so many think? Capitalism is about economic renewal so it has to take care of it assets - the environment, resources and its people. Yes it is full of contradiction. Nevertheless, it tries to reconcile and resolve them. If it didn't, it, like Marx believed, would have destroyed itself long ago.
People thing that capitalism stands on its own, that it doesn’t liaison with other systems. No system is an island. It liaisons with democracy. It gets feedback and discipline from democracy. This makes capitalism part of a mixed economy, mixed with democratic values, debunking another misconception that we don't have a mixed economy. Partnered with democracy it has cultivated and maintained mutually beneficial values like freedom, public health care, a semblance of equality, work ethics, security and public transportation. Its partnership with democracy is a big reason for its ascendancy, in the same way capitalism has contributed to democracy’s ascendancy.
Another reason why I think capitalism has continued where others have failed is that it deals with economic realities. In this instance I am talking about the natural laws and imperatives that govern us. For instance, the communist command type of economy distorted and manipulated nature's economic realities, like the availability or lack of resources and their true value. It also lied about its industrial and agricultural capabilities, letting down those who had put so much faith in it. Communism's behavior was like that of trying to reverse the law of gravity. Because of these distortions there were always shortages, corruption and staggering incompetence under it. Also, the communist economic model didn't account for the fact that periodically it would have to restore and repair itself due to natural wear and tare. It did not have the psychological awareness of the need for economic renewal, restoration and progress that capitalism has. Capitalism stares economic reality right in the face. Other systems failed because they tried to circumvent reality, the reality of human nature and nature’s nature.
One reason people dislike capitalism is because it has this edge to it, a sometimes unfair and destructive edge. It treats people unequally and it causes social upheaval unnecessarily. However, this edge is what makes capitalism successful and the public wanting more. Apart from making wealth, it keeps society economically flexible and imaginative. It induces economic reforms and innovations when needed. If there were rules made to restrict and destroy this edge capitalism would loose its flexibility and the ability to be the material provider we have expected it to be. Other economic systems the world has known were not as agile, inventive or adaptive as capitalism, hence they not longer being with us.
Humankind has this inherent lazy and complacent streak in it. It doesn’t like change. However the central theme of economics, this husbandry and most essential discipline of humankind, is change. A host of factors are responsible for economic change, like the fluctuation of prices, the movement of people, entropy, renewal and the replacement of consumed items. Why capitalism and the free market system rules, instead of a controlled system like communism’s command economics or traditional economics or mercantilism, is because it jars and motivates us out of our natural laziness and complacency, behaviors that can be detrimental to our economic well being. Communism, in particular, allowed people to wallow in such behavior.
I can hear readers saying “yes, but” about capitalism and what I said. Life is full of yes, buts. For capitalism to remain credible and working for us there must always be a chorus of yes, buts. It must always be made to account for itself in order that it remain a viable, legitimate system. Communism, the last challenger of capitalism, didn't allow itself to be questioned or criticized and that is one big reason why it is no longer with us.
Capitalism has existed for at least 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution. In that time it has been seriously challenge by other systems, I mean seriously challenged, but it still stands. Not only does it stand, it has destroyed the competition. Why does it continue to reign when so many think it is such a bad system? Why is it the only economic system left in the world?
The reason I think it lives on, even though it is imperfect, is because it is the one system that has shaped itself to reflect the imperfect nature of humankind. Other systems failed because they didn't take into account human nature and its predisposition. Capitalism has molded itself to the human race. The abuses in capitalism reflect the abuses humans are capable of. However, and this will be hard for some to believe, capitalism works to temper and contain those abuses. It has done so in a cajoling manner whereas other systems, like communism, have forcefully tried, unsuccessfully, to mold us into something we are not. It works with our idiosyncrasies and irrationalities whereas other economic systems tried to end or stamp them out. Capitalism, simply, is the best system that can be had under the circumstance, considering humankind's obtuseness and intransigencies.
The idea that capitalism is truly laisser faire and unfettered is a misconception. We could not survive unfettered capitalism. It would be too high octane and dangerous to handle. If it were unfettered there would be many more calamities like Enron and depressions. In the end there would be nothing. If you think the environment is suffering now, with unfettered capitalism there wouldn’t be one. Why would capitalism destroy the very thing that gives it life, as so many think? Capitalism is about economic renewal so it has to take care of it assets - the environment, resources and its people. Yes it is full of contradiction. Nevertheless, it tries to reconcile and resolve them. If it didn't, it, like Marx believed, would have destroyed itself long ago.
People thing that capitalism stands on its own, that it doesn’t liaison with other systems. No system is an island. It liaisons with democracy. It gets feedback and discipline from democracy. This makes capitalism part of a mixed economy, mixed with democratic values, debunking another misconception that we don't have a mixed economy. Partnered with democracy it has cultivated and maintained mutually beneficial values like freedom, public health care, a semblance of equality, work ethics, security and public transportation. Its partnership with democracy is a big reason for its ascendancy, in the same way capitalism has contributed to democracy’s ascendancy.
Another reason why I think capitalism has continued where others have failed is that it deals with economic realities. In this instance I am talking about the natural laws and imperatives that govern us. For instance, the communist command type of economy distorted and manipulated nature's economic realities, like the availability or lack of resources and their true value. It also lied about its industrial and agricultural capabilities, letting down those who had put so much faith in it. Communism's behavior was like that of trying to reverse the law of gravity. Because of these distortions there were always shortages, corruption and staggering incompetence under it. Also, the communist economic model didn't account for the fact that periodically it would have to restore and repair itself due to natural wear and tare. It did not have the psychological awareness of the need for economic renewal, restoration and progress that capitalism has. Capitalism stares economic reality right in the face. Other systems failed because they tried to circumvent reality, the reality of human nature and nature’s nature.
One reason people dislike capitalism is because it has this edge to it, a sometimes unfair and destructive edge. It treats people unequally and it causes social upheaval unnecessarily. However, this edge is what makes capitalism successful and the public wanting more. Apart from making wealth, it keeps society economically flexible and imaginative. It induces economic reforms and innovations when needed. If there were rules made to restrict and destroy this edge capitalism would loose its flexibility and the ability to be the material provider we have expected it to be. Other economic systems the world has known were not as agile, inventive or adaptive as capitalism, hence they not longer being with us.
Humankind has this inherent lazy and complacent streak in it. It doesn’t like change. However the central theme of economics, this husbandry and most essential discipline of humankind, is change. A host of factors are responsible for economic change, like the fluctuation of prices, the movement of people, entropy, renewal and the replacement of consumed items. Why capitalism and the free market system rules, instead of a controlled system like communism’s command economics or traditional economics or mercantilism, is because it jars and motivates us out of our natural laziness and complacency, behaviors that can be detrimental to our economic well being. Communism, in particular, allowed people to wallow in such behavior.
I can hear readers saying “yes, but” about capitalism and what I said. Life is full of yes, buts. For capitalism to remain credible and working for us there must always be a chorus of yes, buts. It must always be made to account for itself in order that it remain a viable, legitimate system. Communism, the last challenger of capitalism, didn't allow itself to be questioned or criticized and that is one big reason why it is no longer with us.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Progressivism
There is a new buzzword in American politics, progressivism. Many liberals have adopted it to express their political philosophy instead of sticking with the doctrine of liberalism, which has gotten a bad reputation. Conservatives have been very clever at painting liberalism as the ideology of people who are morally deficient and spendthrifts. Progressivism is a good alternative because it emphasizes the progressive qualities liberals harbor without making them look like political outcasts. Politically, progressivism casts a wide net. It can and does cross party lines. Why, even conservatives can be progressive. Some people view it as a ‘third way’.
A recent questionnaire asked, “What is the most important value for progressives?” It listed six choices, freedom, access, community, integrity, accountability and equality. I chose equality. The majority chose equality. Accountability came in second. I think one thing that makes for a progressive person is a willingness to adopt new ideas, to think anew and be forward looking in politics and human governance. New and forward looking ideas reinvigorate governments and initiate the reforms necessary to keep them from growing stale and to keep them legitimate, vital and abreast of changing times. Progressives are more flexible than non-progressives and tend to be more inclusive, hence their favoring equality over inequality. I understand why accountability is also at the top of the list, because it helps make equality possible. Equality requires a fairness and an openness that accountability encourages and facilitates. Accountability, along with its partner transparency, affords the recourse if equality is denied. Essentially, then, progressivism is about being an open society. Without it the reverse is true.
Equality is far and away the quality progressive people value most. Perhaps that is because if one doesn’t believe in equality, like between the sexes or between the races, one is not progressive. One who denies equality for all could be accused of being retroactive and living in the past, in a time warp.
“If one is not progressive, one exists in a time warp.” I looked up the meaning of warp and a synonym of it is ‘distort’. A definition of distort is “to give false or misleading account”. This explains why accountability also is high on the list as a value for progressives, because they dislike distortions. Progressives recognize distortions as being manipulative and a looking backwards. For example, one distortion and a throwback in time is the thinking that women are not equal or as capable as men because their brains are different. On the contrary, women have proven themselves mentally equal, given the opportunity. In some cultures it is believed that women don’t need the vote because their husband’s vote is enough, and anyway, she might cancel his vote out by voting differently. That is unprogressive in two ways because it presumes that women don’t have minds of their own and that women should be married. Another culturally distorted, backward idea is that workingwomen take jobs away from men. That argument is silly. In fact, the inclusion of women, as well as minorities, makes for a richer and more dynamic workforce.
I think the main interest behind the questionnaire was to explore moral values. Conservatives, with success, have pained themselves as the defenders of moral values and liberals as being, well, too loose with them and allowing them to deteriorate. Politically, conservatives have run and won on this issue. In the past liberalism/progressivism was connected more with economic issues. It was about forging policies that would foster economic equality and thus the betterment of society. The New Deal was an economically progressive act. So too were the social policies introduced in the sixties, like affirmative action. Today, the economic progressivism debate seem to have taken a more moral slant and questions whether too much liberalism and progress has occurred there. In taking the identity ‘progressivism’, liberals are hoping to deflect some of the moral criticism leveled against them. Progressives say that they deliberately haven’t been loose with moral values, but instead have practiced a social flexibility so that minority groups, feminists and homosexuals can feel like they also belonged and have equal rights. However, many conservatives have felt threatened buy such progressive moves and have seen them as being corrosive to society in general.
In the past progress has generally been associated with economics. The idea grew out of 18th century idea of liberty and the right to own property. The progressive/enlightened view that followed was that the road to a legitimate and meaningful form of human governance was through economic emancipation. America was the first to adopt this progressive approach. It seemed like the logical common ground to unity individuals from all over the world with diverse backgrounds and interests. The argument wasn’t yet made but there was a sort of tacit understanding that if citizens were economically empowered and made to feel that they had an economic stake in the system they would make better citizens and be more apt to contribute to America. The more people that are enfranchised and made to feel equal in this way the more people there are who participate in the system. Being an economic participant also brings with it recognition and accountability from peers and government. Since the enactment of affirmative action in the U.S. more people have become economically active, received educations, entered the workforce and have become consumers. Such people are more responsible and self-reliant, less dependent on the state and are more likely to contribute to the system. Because of this kind of progress American society has become more stable and resilient. The alternative has caused race riots and social tension. America first became liberal and progressive in the field of economics. Later progress moved into politics. Today there are signs that conservatives are challenging the economic and political progress of the past as being too liberal.
It has been said that globalization would role back progressive programs initiated by developed countries in order for them to be and remain economically competitive with countries that weren't burdened with such programs. Well, the other day there was an economic event that went against that argument. Toyota, the second largest carmaker in the world, chose for its new North American plan Ontario instead of Alabama. Alabama made financial concessions to Toyota for it to locate there. However, Toyota decided to locate in Ontario because it had access to a publicly funded universal health care system. That access would save Toyota a lot of money in health care costs in comparison to Alabama, which had no such system. In some quarters universal health care coverage has been view as an economic negative because it is another government expenditure that takes money away from individuals for the benefit of the community. However, this progressive move Ontario choose to make decades ago has enhances its competitive position today.
Toyota picked Ontario for another progressive reason, an educated and skilled workforce. It is not so much that Ontario is progressive in this area but that Alabama showed itself not to be. Toyota discovered that for its purpose Alabama had an inadequately trained work force. Not only that, the state had voted against a tax increase that could have improved that situation and one of the poorest educational systems in America. This incident debunks the theory, that globalization is anti progressive and that it tears away at progressive and humane social policies. On the contrary, as this incident showed, globalization justifies them.
Some people don’t believe in progress. I am not sure what they believe in. Do they believe that progress is an illusion? Behind the idea of progress is the idea that humanity can and will be gradually perfected. Maybe that is why people don’t believe in it, because they don’t see that humanity is being improved or perfected. Perhaps they see what we call progress as just the unleashing of a set of new problems that need solving. But maybe progress is about something else, about not remaining static or stationary, about movement, taking initiatives and making additions. Isn’t the chipping away at inequalities and repression signs of progress? I think one reason it is difficult to detect social progress is because the world is constantly changing and expanding. That puts pressure on past social progressive developments, often eroding or nullifying them. Progress, like everything else, also suffers from atrophy and fatigue. Progress, to remain progress, often has to be reworked and refigured to fit with the new variables and circumstances the world is constantly unleashing. It is a work in progress. Progress is learning from history, which is always happening, and moving beyond it. I think we have done that on several occasions.
A recent questionnaire asked, “What is the most important value for progressives?” It listed six choices, freedom, access, community, integrity, accountability and equality. I chose equality. The majority chose equality. Accountability came in second. I think one thing that makes for a progressive person is a willingness to adopt new ideas, to think anew and be forward looking in politics and human governance. New and forward looking ideas reinvigorate governments and initiate the reforms necessary to keep them from growing stale and to keep them legitimate, vital and abreast of changing times. Progressives are more flexible than non-progressives and tend to be more inclusive, hence their favoring equality over inequality. I understand why accountability is also at the top of the list, because it helps make equality possible. Equality requires a fairness and an openness that accountability encourages and facilitates. Accountability, along with its partner transparency, affords the recourse if equality is denied. Essentially, then, progressivism is about being an open society. Without it the reverse is true.
Equality is far and away the quality progressive people value most. Perhaps that is because if one doesn’t believe in equality, like between the sexes or between the races, one is not progressive. One who denies equality for all could be accused of being retroactive and living in the past, in a time warp.
“If one is not progressive, one exists in a time warp.” I looked up the meaning of warp and a synonym of it is ‘distort’. A definition of distort is “to give false or misleading account”. This explains why accountability also is high on the list as a value for progressives, because they dislike distortions. Progressives recognize distortions as being manipulative and a looking backwards. For example, one distortion and a throwback in time is the thinking that women are not equal or as capable as men because their brains are different. On the contrary, women have proven themselves mentally equal, given the opportunity. In some cultures it is believed that women don’t need the vote because their husband’s vote is enough, and anyway, she might cancel his vote out by voting differently. That is unprogressive in two ways because it presumes that women don’t have minds of their own and that women should be married. Another culturally distorted, backward idea is that workingwomen take jobs away from men. That argument is silly. In fact, the inclusion of women, as well as minorities, makes for a richer and more dynamic workforce.
I think the main interest behind the questionnaire was to explore moral values. Conservatives, with success, have pained themselves as the defenders of moral values and liberals as being, well, too loose with them and allowing them to deteriorate. Politically, conservatives have run and won on this issue. In the past liberalism/progressivism was connected more with economic issues. It was about forging policies that would foster economic equality and thus the betterment of society. The New Deal was an economically progressive act. So too were the social policies introduced in the sixties, like affirmative action. Today, the economic progressivism debate seem to have taken a more moral slant and questions whether too much liberalism and progress has occurred there. In taking the identity ‘progressivism’, liberals are hoping to deflect some of the moral criticism leveled against them. Progressives say that they deliberately haven’t been loose with moral values, but instead have practiced a social flexibility so that minority groups, feminists and homosexuals can feel like they also belonged and have equal rights. However, many conservatives have felt threatened buy such progressive moves and have seen them as being corrosive to society in general.
In the past progress has generally been associated with economics. The idea grew out of 18th century idea of liberty and the right to own property. The progressive/enlightened view that followed was that the road to a legitimate and meaningful form of human governance was through economic emancipation. America was the first to adopt this progressive approach. It seemed like the logical common ground to unity individuals from all over the world with diverse backgrounds and interests. The argument wasn’t yet made but there was a sort of tacit understanding that if citizens were economically empowered and made to feel that they had an economic stake in the system they would make better citizens and be more apt to contribute to America. The more people that are enfranchised and made to feel equal in this way the more people there are who participate in the system. Being an economic participant also brings with it recognition and accountability from peers and government. Since the enactment of affirmative action in the U.S. more people have become economically active, received educations, entered the workforce and have become consumers. Such people are more responsible and self-reliant, less dependent on the state and are more likely to contribute to the system. Because of this kind of progress American society has become more stable and resilient. The alternative has caused race riots and social tension. America first became liberal and progressive in the field of economics. Later progress moved into politics. Today there are signs that conservatives are challenging the economic and political progress of the past as being too liberal.
It has been said that globalization would role back progressive programs initiated by developed countries in order for them to be and remain economically competitive with countries that weren't burdened with such programs. Well, the other day there was an economic event that went against that argument. Toyota, the second largest carmaker in the world, chose for its new North American plan Ontario instead of Alabama. Alabama made financial concessions to Toyota for it to locate there. However, Toyota decided to locate in Ontario because it had access to a publicly funded universal health care system. That access would save Toyota a lot of money in health care costs in comparison to Alabama, which had no such system. In some quarters universal health care coverage has been view as an economic negative because it is another government expenditure that takes money away from individuals for the benefit of the community. However, this progressive move Ontario choose to make decades ago has enhances its competitive position today.
Toyota picked Ontario for another progressive reason, an educated and skilled workforce. It is not so much that Ontario is progressive in this area but that Alabama showed itself not to be. Toyota discovered that for its purpose Alabama had an inadequately trained work force. Not only that, the state had voted against a tax increase that could have improved that situation and one of the poorest educational systems in America. This incident debunks the theory, that globalization is anti progressive and that it tears away at progressive and humane social policies. On the contrary, as this incident showed, globalization justifies them.
Some people don’t believe in progress. I am not sure what they believe in. Do they believe that progress is an illusion? Behind the idea of progress is the idea that humanity can and will be gradually perfected. Maybe that is why people don’t believe in it, because they don’t see that humanity is being improved or perfected. Perhaps they see what we call progress as just the unleashing of a set of new problems that need solving. But maybe progress is about something else, about not remaining static or stationary, about movement, taking initiatives and making additions. Isn’t the chipping away at inequalities and repression signs of progress? I think one reason it is difficult to detect social progress is because the world is constantly changing and expanding. That puts pressure on past social progressive developments, often eroding or nullifying them. Progress, like everything else, also suffers from atrophy and fatigue. Progress, to remain progress, often has to be reworked and refigured to fit with the new variables and circumstances the world is constantly unleashing. It is a work in progress. Progress is learning from history, which is always happening, and moving beyond it. I think we have done that on several occasions.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Globalization is an anomaly?
I can’t let the article in The Guardian by James Howard Kunstler (Aug. 4) entitled “Globalization is an anomaly and time is running out” go unchallenged. I have concluded that Mr. Kunstler does not know very much about globalization. He thinks that it is something that it is removable from world events. That is ridiculous. Globalization has woven a web so strong that it can’t be separated from the rest of the human enterprise. It can’t be abandoned or allowed to collapse because the consequences would be horrendous. The world has become too dependent on it for it to end.
Globalization is about much more than economics, though economics is its foundation. From the tone of Mr. Kunstler’s article his dislike for globalization is really his dislike for America and the spreading of its ways around the world. (In globalization the center is now moving away from America as it did from Britain.) Resentment is not a good basis for an argument. Moreover, Mr. Kunstler should know that Britain and Europe were just as much or more responsible for globalization with their colonization, trade and insatiable appetite for exploration. On the other hand, globalization has been Britain and Europe’s savior. Without it there would have been no America or colonies to come to their rescue in two world wars.
Globalization ending on the scrap heap of history is as ridiculous an idea as the internet ending on the scrap heap of history. Speaking of the internet, it wouldn’t exist without globalization. Conversely, the internet reinforces and expands globalization. If globalization is an anomaly so is the internet and so is international travel and so is international trade and financing.
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times does sound a bit like a broken record when he goes on about the inevitabilities and virtues of globalization. But Kunstler and sores of other, such a John Ralston Saul, sound more broken when they go on with their whiny prognoses about globalization and how it is something unnatural and in its last throes. Globalization has made the world more secure. It debunked communism. One of the silliest comments I ever heard was from a British professor who said that 9/11 meant the end of globalization. From what I have seen the reverse has happened. Globalization has been strengthened by it. If anything, 9/11 showed a global solidarity, a determination for a more secure and ordered world, a proof that globalization is here to stay. World travel has increased since. So has world trade and finance. The quick responses to the recent global events like the tsunami and contagious diseases would not be possible without globalization because of the global cooperation it musters. Globalization is a form of containment that has a cauterizing effect, like the circling of wagons, in treating world disasters.
Kunstler talks about another era of globalization which ended in the early 20th century. He uses that collapse of globalization as a verification of its impending collapse today. Globalization, according to historians, thrived in the latter part of the 19th century. This is how I see it. The reason why that first round of globalization collapse, just before the WW l, is because the world wasn't ready for it. (Funny, nobody accused this instance of globalization of being an anomaly.) It collapsed because it was too sophisticated an enterprise for the world to fully adopt and implement at that time. The world didn't yet have all the pieces in place for its continued success. Sociopolitical attitudes and situations like colonialism and imperialism had to change before it could continue. Globalization didn’t end before WW l. It just lay dormant until a better time arrived. It really took off again with the advent of world bodies like the UN and the World Bank which made it more feasible. (I consider the first instance something like a dry run.) His saying that globalization is not a permanent fixture of the human condition is bunk. It has be a permanent fixture since the beginning of Civilization when it first started weaving its web. Globalization is the result of the unavoidable and inevitable interaction/interdependence of human activity.
For decades the West has been telling the rest of the world - China, India, Korea, Eastern Europe - to be more like it. Globalization has afforded that opportunity. It has expanded democracy and capitalism to many areas of the world that never had it, in some instances with great success, like with Germany and Japan. It shredded communism and other totalitarian regimes as it pushed and advance democracy and capitalism. Now Kunstler is suggesting that we abandon globalization. Perhaps one reason some people want to scrap globalization is because the ‘other side’ is getting to good at our game and ‘taking our resources’. Some people are isolationists, xenophobic and protectionist and that is also why they hate globalization.
What makes Kunstler think that the depletion of oil will bring an end to globalization? I think that since the world has become so interwoven with itself, the opposite will happen, just like with 9/11. The interdependence of the world and globalization has happened so as to tackle and overcome, as one, the many pitfalls of the modern world. Financially and economically we are too tangled up with each other to let it go any other way. It is as though the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith created it deliberately . We are bound by it. One thing we can do is improve on it. But we can’t extricate ourselves from it.
Globalization is about much more than economics, though economics is its foundation. From the tone of Mr. Kunstler’s article his dislike for globalization is really his dislike for America and the spreading of its ways around the world. (In globalization the center is now moving away from America as it did from Britain.) Resentment is not a good basis for an argument. Moreover, Mr. Kunstler should know that Britain and Europe were just as much or more responsible for globalization with their colonization, trade and insatiable appetite for exploration. On the other hand, globalization has been Britain and Europe’s savior. Without it there would have been no America or colonies to come to their rescue in two world wars.
Globalization ending on the scrap heap of history is as ridiculous an idea as the internet ending on the scrap heap of history. Speaking of the internet, it wouldn’t exist without globalization. Conversely, the internet reinforces and expands globalization. If globalization is an anomaly so is the internet and so is international travel and so is international trade and financing.
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times does sound a bit like a broken record when he goes on about the inevitabilities and virtues of globalization. But Kunstler and sores of other, such a John Ralston Saul, sound more broken when they go on with their whiny prognoses about globalization and how it is something unnatural and in its last throes. Globalization has made the world more secure. It debunked communism. One of the silliest comments I ever heard was from a British professor who said that 9/11 meant the end of globalization. From what I have seen the reverse has happened. Globalization has been strengthened by it. If anything, 9/11 showed a global solidarity, a determination for a more secure and ordered world, a proof that globalization is here to stay. World travel has increased since. So has world trade and finance. The quick responses to the recent global events like the tsunami and contagious diseases would not be possible without globalization because of the global cooperation it musters. Globalization is a form of containment that has a cauterizing effect, like the circling of wagons, in treating world disasters.
Kunstler talks about another era of globalization which ended in the early 20th century. He uses that collapse of globalization as a verification of its impending collapse today. Globalization, according to historians, thrived in the latter part of the 19th century. This is how I see it. The reason why that first round of globalization collapse, just before the WW l, is because the world wasn't ready for it. (Funny, nobody accused this instance of globalization of being an anomaly.) It collapsed because it was too sophisticated an enterprise for the world to fully adopt and implement at that time. The world didn't yet have all the pieces in place for its continued success. Sociopolitical attitudes and situations like colonialism and imperialism had to change before it could continue. Globalization didn’t end before WW l. It just lay dormant until a better time arrived. It really took off again with the advent of world bodies like the UN and the World Bank which made it more feasible. (I consider the first instance something like a dry run.) His saying that globalization is not a permanent fixture of the human condition is bunk. It has be a permanent fixture since the beginning of Civilization when it first started weaving its web. Globalization is the result of the unavoidable and inevitable interaction/interdependence of human activity.
For decades the West has been telling the rest of the world - China, India, Korea, Eastern Europe - to be more like it. Globalization has afforded that opportunity. It has expanded democracy and capitalism to many areas of the world that never had it, in some instances with great success, like with Germany and Japan. It shredded communism and other totalitarian regimes as it pushed and advance democracy and capitalism. Now Kunstler is suggesting that we abandon globalization. Perhaps one reason some people want to scrap globalization is because the ‘other side’ is getting to good at our game and ‘taking our resources’. Some people are isolationists, xenophobic and protectionist and that is also why they hate globalization.
What makes Kunstler think that the depletion of oil will bring an end to globalization? I think that since the world has become so interwoven with itself, the opposite will happen, just like with 9/11. The interdependence of the world and globalization has happened so as to tackle and overcome, as one, the many pitfalls of the modern world. Financially and economically we are too tangled up with each other to let it go any other way. It is as though the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith created it deliberately . We are bound by it. One thing we can do is improve on it. But we can’t extricate ourselves from it.
Friday, July 22, 2005
A Contradictory world
When I first started thinking about the world I wondered if my ideas and conclusions about it were right. I needed to confirm them. Then I happened upon philosophy where I discovered thinkers who had similar ideas to mine. That’s one thing I like about philosophy. It confirms things.
One of the first ideas that popped into my head when I started contemplating our world is that it is full of contradiction. Not only that, we blindly and deliberately encourage contradiction. I noticed that we praise and promote one thing with great vigor and conviction and then proceed to do the opposite. For instance, we extol the virtues of democracy but then we turn around and promote with equal vigor and conviction an often-undemocratic institution like capitalism. Though these two systems manage to coexist with each other they often clash and cause friction. To my mind this contradictory relationship under scores a need for a measure of institutional conflict in our lives. We reside, then, in a polemic world. Not only do we need it but also as we have progressed this contradictory, polemic nature has increased. We revel in it. Hegel is the one who put me on the path of unraveling this mystery.
Hegel’s critical thinking basically took place in the field of contradiction when he spoke about change, conflict and the dialectic The dialectic is the process of contradictory ideas clashing and transforming each other. Change is the inevitable outcome of the dialectical process. Conflict is the inevitability of contradictory ideas engaging each other in the dialectic. Hegel is the thinker who confirmed my deeps feelings about the world being the product of contradictory elements.
Why did I focus on contradiction in the first place? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I am an Aquarian, the most contradictory sign of the zodiac. Seriously, though, perhaps it has more to do with my being a creative person. Creative people have this intuitive understanding about contradiction and how contradictory items and opposites mingle with each other to create things. For instance, an architect can create a building space because he understands the relationship between the contradictory elements of length, height and depth. A writer creates interest and tension by bringing together contradictory emotions. An artist draws on the same principle to create a picture, in the same way Nature has draw on contradictory, binary opposites to create and sustain itself. In the contradiction, like in the dialectic, things become animated and alive. Perhaps the real reason I focused on contradiction is because I, like everybody else, live in it and am made of contradictory parts just like everything else is in the universe. It is at the heart of everything. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclites confirmed this when he said, if you do away with contradiction you do away with reality.
The contradiction I am really interested in is that which relates to human governance. A “Young Hegelian”, Francis Fukuyama, who explained why Democracy triumphed over Communism, sparked this interest in me. What registered with me is his writing about Democracy having two components, capitalism and democracy, capitalism being its essential economic branch and democracy the political branch. (I use “Democracy” as one would use “Day” to describe a phenomenon made up of two separate parts of it, night and day.) Basically his argument boiled down to this, Communism collapsed because it wasn’t composed of two separate branches, branches that could have counterbalance and energized the other and the whole. Democracy won out because it took Nature’s course of incorporating two separate and contradictory aspects of itself. Hegel said that humankind needs conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake. He could just as well have being talking about human governance. Communism certainly didn’t have the stimulating conflict of opposing and competing ideas that may have kept it alive and awake.
Ironically, it was a Russian philosopher who first took issue with the need for contradiction in human governance. This philosopher,Berdyaev, was tossed out of the Soviet Union by Lenin for his insight. As someone described it, he foresaw the inevitable dangers of attempting to build a society in accordance with a single theoretical principle. Of course, he was talking about Communism, which was based on a single minded, non-contradictory principle. He predicted that such a government would lead to a totalitarian regime. He was right.
Why do we need institutional polemics and the conflict/change it engenders? I will rely on something Kant said to answer that question. He said that humankind is inherently lazy and complacent. From personal experience I know what he means. So my answer is this: We need it because it’s agitating and motivating. The conflict and change polemics springs upon us creates new situations that challenges and keeps us active and busy. It forces us to think and seek new solutions. Without this polemic churning we would atrophy and not remain alive and awake.
Here is an interesting observation that somebody made: A sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas while still functioning well. There is something salient in that. Our grappling with and balancing contradiction has helped us grown smarter and more capable.
One of the first ideas that popped into my head when I started contemplating our world is that it is full of contradiction. Not only that, we blindly and deliberately encourage contradiction. I noticed that we praise and promote one thing with great vigor and conviction and then proceed to do the opposite. For instance, we extol the virtues of democracy but then we turn around and promote with equal vigor and conviction an often-undemocratic institution like capitalism. Though these two systems manage to coexist with each other they often clash and cause friction. To my mind this contradictory relationship under scores a need for a measure of institutional conflict in our lives. We reside, then, in a polemic world. Not only do we need it but also as we have progressed this contradictory, polemic nature has increased. We revel in it. Hegel is the one who put me on the path of unraveling this mystery.
Hegel’s critical thinking basically took place in the field of contradiction when he spoke about change, conflict and the dialectic The dialectic is the process of contradictory ideas clashing and transforming each other. Change is the inevitable outcome of the dialectical process. Conflict is the inevitability of contradictory ideas engaging each other in the dialectic. Hegel is the thinker who confirmed my deeps feelings about the world being the product of contradictory elements.
Why did I focus on contradiction in the first place? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I am an Aquarian, the most contradictory sign of the zodiac. Seriously, though, perhaps it has more to do with my being a creative person. Creative people have this intuitive understanding about contradiction and how contradictory items and opposites mingle with each other to create things. For instance, an architect can create a building space because he understands the relationship between the contradictory elements of length, height and depth. A writer creates interest and tension by bringing together contradictory emotions. An artist draws on the same principle to create a picture, in the same way Nature has draw on contradictory, binary opposites to create and sustain itself. In the contradiction, like in the dialectic, things become animated and alive. Perhaps the real reason I focused on contradiction is because I, like everybody else, live in it and am made of contradictory parts just like everything else is in the universe. It is at the heart of everything. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclites confirmed this when he said, if you do away with contradiction you do away with reality.
The contradiction I am really interested in is that which relates to human governance. A “Young Hegelian”, Francis Fukuyama, who explained why Democracy triumphed over Communism, sparked this interest in me. What registered with me is his writing about Democracy having two components, capitalism and democracy, capitalism being its essential economic branch and democracy the political branch. (I use “Democracy” as one would use “Day” to describe a phenomenon made up of two separate parts of it, night and day.) Basically his argument boiled down to this, Communism collapsed because it wasn’t composed of two separate branches, branches that could have counterbalance and energized the other and the whole. Democracy won out because it took Nature’s course of incorporating two separate and contradictory aspects of itself. Hegel said that humankind needs conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake. He could just as well have being talking about human governance. Communism certainly didn’t have the stimulating conflict of opposing and competing ideas that may have kept it alive and awake.
Ironically, it was a Russian philosopher who first took issue with the need for contradiction in human governance. This philosopher,Berdyaev, was tossed out of the Soviet Union by Lenin for his insight. As someone described it, he foresaw the inevitable dangers of attempting to build a society in accordance with a single theoretical principle. Of course, he was talking about Communism, which was based on a single minded, non-contradictory principle. He predicted that such a government would lead to a totalitarian regime. He was right.
Why do we need institutional polemics and the conflict/change it engenders? I will rely on something Kant said to answer that question. He said that humankind is inherently lazy and complacent. From personal experience I know what he means. So my answer is this: We need it because it’s agitating and motivating. The conflict and change polemics springs upon us creates new situations that challenges and keeps us active and busy. It forces us to think and seek new solutions. Without this polemic churning we would atrophy and not remain alive and awake.
Here is an interesting observation that somebody made: A sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas while still functioning well. There is something salient in that. Our grappling with and balancing contradiction has helped us grown smarter and more capable.
Friday, July 01, 2005
The Collapse of Globalism
John Ralston Saul, author of “Voltaire’s Bastards”, thinks there is a wrong-headed assumption out there, amongst those who are running the world, that economics is the foundation of Civilization. He believes this assumption has damaged and perverted the world.
He expresses this view in his book “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinventing of the World”. Notice that he uses the term ‘globalism’, not ‘globalization’. There is a difference. Globalization, and he acknowledges this, is something that has been occurring since the beginning of Civilization. That event is about the world growing smaller and more interdependent as a result of people and nations engaging each other in common pursuits, such as trade, travel and communications. It’s also due to the expansion of Civilization. Columbus’ discovery of the New World was an act of globalization. Globalism, though, is something else. Saul uses the -ism suffix to distinguish and portray this event as an ideology, like a religion. Globalization is a natural, evolutionary process. But globalism, as he sees it, is the manipulation of this process by zealots and ideological wonks who think they know best how to run and organize the world. This ideology is based on the idea that, you guessed it, economics is the foundation of Civilization. Advocates of this ideology have peddled it as a cure-all for what ails the world. They believe that the market forces of globalism are the answer to everything, as though it was the holy grail of human governance. However, Saul feels very strongly that the imposition of this ideology on the world has gravely injured it and is not the panacea it has been made out to be. He sees it as a failure and its collapse as a sign that the world might be coming to its senses in rejecting it.
I understand Saul’s peeve. If you have read any of his books and articles you may also understand where he is coming from. I wouldn’t quite call him a conspiratorial thinker but I get the impression that he thinks that we have been misguided by a number of influential philosophers and tacticians about what direction the world should take, as we have been misled about globalism. This thinking of his became apparent to me when I read his book Voltaire’s Bastards. From Voltaire’s play “Candide” comes the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds and all is for the best, a belief expressed by Dr. Pangloss, Candide's teacher. This is how I see it: Saul believes this notion prevails and he faults it for making the world vulnerable to all kinds of misadventures in human governance, like globalism. He thinks this attitude has left the world with few guide lines about how it should proceed and conduct itself because it projects a laisser faire, anything goes attitude. He thinks that this worldview has given carte blanche to all kind of hair-brain ideas about how the world should be run. He thinks Pangloss’ worldview supplanted the more sensible Enlightenment worldview which believes that the world can be a better place. It beat out the Enlightenment because Pangloss’ worldview is more alluring, simpler to understand and easier to consume, like fast food is. Enlightenment ideals are sophisticated ones, requiring reflection and hard work to implement them. Had the Enlightenment philosophy been followed instead, the world would be a better place. However, Pangloss’ philosophy prevails and Saul believes this has left the door open to charlatans and snake oil sales men to ply their less than credible grand theories about how the world should be run. This is how the world got saddled with globalism. Saul thinks that things would have been much better if we had followed the Enlightenment vision of how things could be instead of Dr. Pangloss’ vision of how things are.
Saul see globalism as something like a business plan, hatched in some back room solely to profit from the world. Behind globalism is privatization and free market economics. He thinks the world has been dubbed into thinking it is the best thing for what ails it. It’s all about market reform and he sees this being done at the expense of democracy. In his book, “The Doubters Companion”, Saul lists a number of ideas and concepts that have been infused in us without our being aware. And people have accepted them as given, without challenging them. One concept is “corporatism”, an autocratic, fascist institution that he says has replaced democratically elected governments as the principle form of governance. He defines it as an institution that “has been for some time the only real threat to democracy”. Well, he sees globalism in the same light. They are synonymous. Globalism is corporatism on a worldwide scale.
In Voltaire’s Bastards there is a chapter entitled “The Hijacking of Capitalism”. I found this chapter ironic because it seems that Saul is playing both sides of the street. I would have expected him to be against capitalism, especially with his anti-globalism stance. But he isn’t, according to this chapter. However, he is incensed with modern day capitalists because they contradict themselves. It is quite apparent that Saul believes in the original meaning of things. And he believes in the original meaning of capitalism which espouses laisser faire, free market economics. In this chapter he takes capitalists to task for betraying this concept because today’s capitalists believe governments should intervene and bail them out when things go bad for them and capitalism. Modern day capitalists seem to want things both ways, Saul says. What a bunch of hypocrites! The irony is that Saul supports capitalism in it original form but he doesn’t support globalism which is a manifestation of capitalism’s original intentions. However, it is quite possible he dislike globalism because he thinks it is a bastardization and a distortion of capitalism?
As for Saul’s belief that economics is not the foundation of Civilization, I think he is very wrong. Why, without this discipline being dealt with first nothing much else is possible. It is husbandry of humankind, and Civilization. It is the only disciple that furnishes us with the essentials to survive and continue. It is the only endeavour that puts food on the table, cloths on our backs and a roof over our heads. The institutions of corporatism and globalism which Saul despises have evolved to insure that the economic foundation of Civilization is maintained and that the economic imperatives of the modern world are met. These institutions may have despicable features about them, and I for one know, but as Dr. Pangloss' wisdom suggests, they are the best possible institutions for humankind's most essential task, considering the idiosyncratic characteristics and circumstances of humankind. And if the world is reinventing itself, as Saul suggests in the title of his book, it is reinventing itself in its own image. That means more globalism. Perhaps, though, this time it will have a friendlier face and a more enlightened disposition. Globalism is here to stay. It is the byproduct of the inevitability of globalization. It is the facilitative economic arm of globalization.
Intellectuals generally have a disdain for economics. For them it seems to be an imposition perpetrated by an elite bunch who think they understand the true nature of the world. They feel it gets in the way of the finer things of life. However, little do they realize that it is what affords the finer things of life, and life itself. Some intellectuals seem to think economics is irrelevant. Fortunately they are not running the world. However, intellectuals are essential people too because they reminding us that there is more to life besides economics. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone.
He expresses this view in his book “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinventing of the World”. Notice that he uses the term ‘globalism’, not ‘globalization’. There is a difference. Globalization, and he acknowledges this, is something that has been occurring since the beginning of Civilization. That event is about the world growing smaller and more interdependent as a result of people and nations engaging each other in common pursuits, such as trade, travel and communications. It’s also due to the expansion of Civilization. Columbus’ discovery of the New World was an act of globalization. Globalism, though, is something else. Saul uses the -ism suffix to distinguish and portray this event as an ideology, like a religion. Globalization is a natural, evolutionary process. But globalism, as he sees it, is the manipulation of this process by zealots and ideological wonks who think they know best how to run and organize the world. This ideology is based on the idea that, you guessed it, economics is the foundation of Civilization. Advocates of this ideology have peddled it as a cure-all for what ails the world. They believe that the market forces of globalism are the answer to everything, as though it was the holy grail of human governance. However, Saul feels very strongly that the imposition of this ideology on the world has gravely injured it and is not the panacea it has been made out to be. He sees it as a failure and its collapse as a sign that the world might be coming to its senses in rejecting it.
I understand Saul’s peeve. If you have read any of his books and articles you may also understand where he is coming from. I wouldn’t quite call him a conspiratorial thinker but I get the impression that he thinks that we have been misguided by a number of influential philosophers and tacticians about what direction the world should take, as we have been misled about globalism. This thinking of his became apparent to me when I read his book Voltaire’s Bastards. From Voltaire’s play “Candide” comes the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds and all is for the best, a belief expressed by Dr. Pangloss, Candide's teacher. This is how I see it: Saul believes this notion prevails and he faults it for making the world vulnerable to all kinds of misadventures in human governance, like globalism. He thinks this attitude has left the world with few guide lines about how it should proceed and conduct itself because it projects a laisser faire, anything goes attitude. He thinks that this worldview has given carte blanche to all kind of hair-brain ideas about how the world should be run. He thinks Pangloss’ worldview supplanted the more sensible Enlightenment worldview which believes that the world can be a better place. It beat out the Enlightenment because Pangloss’ worldview is more alluring, simpler to understand and easier to consume, like fast food is. Enlightenment ideals are sophisticated ones, requiring reflection and hard work to implement them. Had the Enlightenment philosophy been followed instead, the world would be a better place. However, Pangloss’ philosophy prevails and Saul believes this has left the door open to charlatans and snake oil sales men to ply their less than credible grand theories about how the world should be run. This is how the world got saddled with globalism. Saul thinks that things would have been much better if we had followed the Enlightenment vision of how things could be instead of Dr. Pangloss’ vision of how things are.
Saul see globalism as something like a business plan, hatched in some back room solely to profit from the world. Behind globalism is privatization and free market economics. He thinks the world has been dubbed into thinking it is the best thing for what ails it. It’s all about market reform and he sees this being done at the expense of democracy. In his book, “The Doubters Companion”, Saul lists a number of ideas and concepts that have been infused in us without our being aware. And people have accepted them as given, without challenging them. One concept is “corporatism”, an autocratic, fascist institution that he says has replaced democratically elected governments as the principle form of governance. He defines it as an institution that “has been for some time the only real threat to democracy”. Well, he sees globalism in the same light. They are synonymous. Globalism is corporatism on a worldwide scale.
In Voltaire’s Bastards there is a chapter entitled “The Hijacking of Capitalism”. I found this chapter ironic because it seems that Saul is playing both sides of the street. I would have expected him to be against capitalism, especially with his anti-globalism stance. But he isn’t, according to this chapter. However, he is incensed with modern day capitalists because they contradict themselves. It is quite apparent that Saul believes in the original meaning of things. And he believes in the original meaning of capitalism which espouses laisser faire, free market economics. In this chapter he takes capitalists to task for betraying this concept because today’s capitalists believe governments should intervene and bail them out when things go bad for them and capitalism. Modern day capitalists seem to want things both ways, Saul says. What a bunch of hypocrites! The irony is that Saul supports capitalism in it original form but he doesn’t support globalism which is a manifestation of capitalism’s original intentions. However, it is quite possible he dislike globalism because he thinks it is a bastardization and a distortion of capitalism?
As for Saul’s belief that economics is not the foundation of Civilization, I think he is very wrong. Why, without this discipline being dealt with first nothing much else is possible. It is husbandry of humankind, and Civilization. It is the only disciple that furnishes us with the essentials to survive and continue. It is the only endeavour that puts food on the table, cloths on our backs and a roof over our heads. The institutions of corporatism and globalism which Saul despises have evolved to insure that the economic foundation of Civilization is maintained and that the economic imperatives of the modern world are met. These institutions may have despicable features about them, and I for one know, but as Dr. Pangloss' wisdom suggests, they are the best possible institutions for humankind's most essential task, considering the idiosyncratic characteristics and circumstances of humankind. And if the world is reinventing itself, as Saul suggests in the title of his book, it is reinventing itself in its own image. That means more globalism. Perhaps, though, this time it will have a friendlier face and a more enlightened disposition. Globalism is here to stay. It is the byproduct of the inevitability of globalization. It is the facilitative economic arm of globalization.
Intellectuals generally have a disdain for economics. For them it seems to be an imposition perpetrated by an elite bunch who think they understand the true nature of the world. They feel it gets in the way of the finer things of life. However, little do they realize that it is what affords the finer things of life, and life itself. Some intellectuals seem to think economics is irrelevant. Fortunately they are not running the world. However, intellectuals are essential people too because they reminding us that there is more to life besides economics. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Pairing and Vagueness
Do philosophy and globalization have anything in common? Sometimes I pair unrelated subjects as a way to stimulating new thinking. Earlier in this blog I paired Hegel and thermodynamics and discovered some interesting things I would not have otherwise discovered. Here is what I discovered this time:
Vagueness is what they have in common. For instance, globalization can be a vague subject and philosophy deals with vague subject matter. If there wasn't any vagueness or ambiguity about the world, if its function was perfectly clear, there would be no need for philosophical inquiry to figure things out. Among the major subjects philosophy examines, as listed in "The Oxford Companion of Philosophy", are subjects related to human governance like economics, democracy and capitalism. What makes these subjects philosophy studies and globalization potentially vague is that they are broad descriptions about human activities and thus are prone to contradiction and various interpretations, the stuff of vagueness.
The connection between philosophy and globalization is furthered by the fact that globalization is imbued with those structures of human governance philosophy studies. Globalization is chiefly about economic integration, blended with capitalism and democracy. Because of that kinship I see globalization as a form of human governance. As illustrated by The Oxford Companion, philosophy employs economics, democracy, capitalism as tools to understand and explain the tendencies of our world, how people in their circumstances have come to organize and govern themselves. However, as shown by its absence in The Companion, globalization is not employed in that way, as a tool of philosophical inquire. Perhaps someday it will be because I found it a font of information about philosophy's major inquiry, the human enterprise. Subsequently, though, I found it as an entry in the latest edition of "Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". And there, clearly, you can see the interpretive vagueness about globalization I speak of.
While on the subject, I would like say more about vagueness, this constant companion of philosophy. A question recently asked about it was, "Is vagueness an aspect of reality itself." I certainly think so. Some might think it exists because of ignorance or a lack of clarity. However, I think it is a manifestation of the contradictory, paradoxical nature of our world. It is a result of human diversity. I see it as a synthesized reality which acts as an ether of accommodation, a venue for diverse human interaction, a common ground. It is like... a facilitative mechanism. Humankind has cultivated it as a means of coexisting by abstraction. In the context of human governance, abstraction essentially are technique for containing and transcending the divisive, conflictive nature of humankind. One example is "all men are created equal" which certainly is vague and abstract. Abstractions are intended to be universal, hence their vagueness. Diplomacy, law and politics are examples of its application. I think one reason Democracy and English enjoy mass appeal throughout the world, albeit often tacit - and tacit is a form of vagueness, a sort of committal, noncommittal - is because they understand this reality and use it to their advantage. Vagueness gives them an ease and flexibility about them that makes them more accommodating than other systems. This is not to say that vagueness substitutes, displaces or is in lieu of the core realities involving human nature and its propensities. On the contrary. It works in concert with them. If vagueness had a job description I think it would be that of facilitator. With its emphases on economics, capitalism and democracy, I think globalization is spreading this mutually beneficial attitude around the world.
One more thing about vagueness. Because there is a lack of definition and clarity about it I liken vagueness to a creative device, one that provokes one to examine and think about various aspects of puzzling issues. It encourages a cognitive exercise that one would not otherwise enter into. In this process one is advanced epistemologically because one is mentally engaged and challenged to find a balance. This I think is one of the processes that has advanced and sophisticated humankind. Pragmatism and pluralism, America's main philosophies, have a vagueness about them. (That is why absolutists and fundamentalists have a disdain for them.) There is something utilitarian and relative about them like there is about vagueness. They are successful philosophies and globalization is promoting them around the world.
Vagueness is what they have in common. For instance, globalization can be a vague subject and philosophy deals with vague subject matter. If there wasn't any vagueness or ambiguity about the world, if its function was perfectly clear, there would be no need for philosophical inquiry to figure things out. Among the major subjects philosophy examines, as listed in "The Oxford Companion of Philosophy", are subjects related to human governance like economics, democracy and capitalism. What makes these subjects philosophy studies and globalization potentially vague is that they are broad descriptions about human activities and thus are prone to contradiction and various interpretations, the stuff of vagueness.
The connection between philosophy and globalization is furthered by the fact that globalization is imbued with those structures of human governance philosophy studies. Globalization is chiefly about economic integration, blended with capitalism and democracy. Because of that kinship I see globalization as a form of human governance. As illustrated by The Oxford Companion, philosophy employs economics, democracy, capitalism as tools to understand and explain the tendencies of our world, how people in their circumstances have come to organize and govern themselves. However, as shown by its absence in The Companion, globalization is not employed in that way, as a tool of philosophical inquire. Perhaps someday it will be because I found it a font of information about philosophy's major inquiry, the human enterprise. Subsequently, though, I found it as an entry in the latest edition of "Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". And there, clearly, you can see the interpretive vagueness about globalization I speak of.
While on the subject, I would like say more about vagueness, this constant companion of philosophy. A question recently asked about it was, "Is vagueness an aspect of reality itself." I certainly think so. Some might think it exists because of ignorance or a lack of clarity. However, I think it is a manifestation of the contradictory, paradoxical nature of our world. It is a result of human diversity. I see it as a synthesized reality which acts as an ether of accommodation, a venue for diverse human interaction, a common ground. It is like... a facilitative mechanism. Humankind has cultivated it as a means of coexisting by abstraction. In the context of human governance, abstraction essentially are technique for containing and transcending the divisive, conflictive nature of humankind. One example is "all men are created equal" which certainly is vague and abstract. Abstractions are intended to be universal, hence their vagueness. Diplomacy, law and politics are examples of its application. I think one reason Democracy and English enjoy mass appeal throughout the world, albeit often tacit - and tacit is a form of vagueness, a sort of committal, noncommittal - is because they understand this reality and use it to their advantage. Vagueness gives them an ease and flexibility about them that makes them more accommodating than other systems. This is not to say that vagueness substitutes, displaces or is in lieu of the core realities involving human nature and its propensities. On the contrary. It works in concert with them. If vagueness had a job description I think it would be that of facilitator. With its emphases on economics, capitalism and democracy, I think globalization is spreading this mutually beneficial attitude around the world.
One more thing about vagueness. Because there is a lack of definition and clarity about it I liken vagueness to a creative device, one that provokes one to examine and think about various aspects of puzzling issues. It encourages a cognitive exercise that one would not otherwise enter into. In this process one is advanced epistemologically because one is mentally engaged and challenged to find a balance. This I think is one of the processes that has advanced and sophisticated humankind. Pragmatism and pluralism, America's main philosophies, have a vagueness about them. (That is why absolutists and fundamentalists have a disdain for them.) There is something utilitarian and relative about them like there is about vagueness. They are successful philosophies and globalization is promoting them around the world.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
The End of History
Francis Fukuyama wrote "The End Of History" as a way to explain an extraordinary historical event, the collapse of Communism and the ascendancy of Democracy. He saw this event as being an end point in human governance because with it there now was only one alternative in human governance left in the world. Democracy had not only triumphed over Communism but it had also triumphed over all other forms of government known to humankind. Fukuyama said this event also represented the end of an ideological struggle, one to determined the course and nature human governance ought to take. With the triumph of Democracy this struggle was essential over. Fukuyama’s “End of History”, metaphorically, is the end of an aspect of History.
Profound developments in History have been accompanied by new, pioneering philosophies to help mediate and facilitate their impact on the world. The revolution in human governance that Fukuyama brought to our attention is on the whole as profound an event as the discovery of the New World. From that discovery new philosophical thinking emerged to coincide with it. Let me quote what Richard Tarans wrote on the subject in his book “The Passion of the Western Mind”: “The discovery of the New World by global explorers demanded a corresponding discovery of a new mental world in which old patterns of thinking, traditional prejudices, subjective distortions, verbal confusion and general intellectual blindness would be overcome by a new method of acquired knowledge”. I see Fukuyama in this light, as the instigator of a new philosophical thinking that corresponds with the revolution in human governance we have witnessed. Also, he has reinvigorated a debate started long ago by Enlightenment thinkers about the nature and course mutually beneficial government ought to take. As someone said, Fukuyama "opened up large and dramatic vistas that may not have been otherwise discernible".
Fukuyama’s idea of the end of History is problematic in that is had been misunderstood. He acknowledges as much. I know that when I first picked up his book I had difficulty grasping his argument. The End of History is somewhat a misleading title. Many interpreted it, understandably so, to mean that no more history will be made. That, as we know, is ridiculous because as long as humans are around and active, history will be made. History is a documentation of human activity. What Fukuyama meant, perhaps exaggeratedly, but I don’t think he could have gotten our attention any other way, was that the end of a specific history was over, like the end of a chapter.
In “The End of History” Francis Fukuyama says that the collapse of Communism and the parallel ascendancy of Democracy (liberal democracy) represents an “end point in mankind’s ideological evolution”. He based his argument on Hegel’s theory that History, History being that of mankind’s struggle with itself, would end when people would no longer have to fight for recognized and freedom. The ideological evolution Fukuyama refers to is basically about the historical philosophical battle humankind has waged to get recognition and freedom and keep it. After a history of intense empirical competition against other form of human governance such as monarchism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, Democracy emerged the ideological winner. Though we may not have completely reached the end of history in the Hegelian sense, I think that with the ascendancy of Democracy humankind is well on its way because Democracy is, by definition, the bestower of recognition and freedom.
Ten years after Fukuyama wrote his historic treatise he revisited it with and article entitle “Second Thoughts”. He recognized that History would not end as long as science continues. Science is the chief sustainer of humankind. Humankind needs science to survive and continue. It affords the technology needed to survive and continue. History will be made as long as humankind makes science.
Profound developments in History have been accompanied by new, pioneering philosophies to help mediate and facilitate their impact on the world. The revolution in human governance that Fukuyama brought to our attention is on the whole as profound an event as the discovery of the New World. From that discovery new philosophical thinking emerged to coincide with it. Let me quote what Richard Tarans wrote on the subject in his book “The Passion of the Western Mind”: “The discovery of the New World by global explorers demanded a corresponding discovery of a new mental world in which old patterns of thinking, traditional prejudices, subjective distortions, verbal confusion and general intellectual blindness would be overcome by a new method of acquired knowledge”. I see Fukuyama in this light, as the instigator of a new philosophical thinking that corresponds with the revolution in human governance we have witnessed. Also, he has reinvigorated a debate started long ago by Enlightenment thinkers about the nature and course mutually beneficial government ought to take. As someone said, Fukuyama "opened up large and dramatic vistas that may not have been otherwise discernible".
Fukuyama’s idea of the end of History is problematic in that is had been misunderstood. He acknowledges as much. I know that when I first picked up his book I had difficulty grasping his argument. The End of History is somewhat a misleading title. Many interpreted it, understandably so, to mean that no more history will be made. That, as we know, is ridiculous because as long as humans are around and active, history will be made. History is a documentation of human activity. What Fukuyama meant, perhaps exaggeratedly, but I don’t think he could have gotten our attention any other way, was that the end of a specific history was over, like the end of a chapter.
In “The End of History” Francis Fukuyama says that the collapse of Communism and the parallel ascendancy of Democracy (liberal democracy) represents an “end point in mankind’s ideological evolution”. He based his argument on Hegel’s theory that History, History being that of mankind’s struggle with itself, would end when people would no longer have to fight for recognized and freedom. The ideological evolution Fukuyama refers to is basically about the historical philosophical battle humankind has waged to get recognition and freedom and keep it. After a history of intense empirical competition against other form of human governance such as monarchism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, Democracy emerged the ideological winner. Though we may not have completely reached the end of history in the Hegelian sense, I think that with the ascendancy of Democracy humankind is well on its way because Democracy is, by definition, the bestower of recognition and freedom.
Ten years after Fukuyama wrote his historic treatise he revisited it with and article entitle “Second Thoughts”. He recognized that History would not end as long as science continues. Science is the chief sustainer of humankind. Humankind needs science to survive and continue. It affords the technology needed to survive and continue. History will be made as long as humankind makes science.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Globalization
Occasionally I come across passages from books that I want to expand on. One such passage comes from the book “Nonzero: The Logic Of Human Destiny” by Robert Wright. It reads, “Globalization, it seems to me, has been in the cards not just since the invention of the telegraph or the steamship, or even the written word or the wheel, but since the invention of life.”
Wright has the right idea about globalization. Generally, though, globalization is misunderstood. Many people interpret it as a contrivance of multinational corporations and big money interests. They see it as a corporate business plan rather than the natural process it is. With it corporations don’t want to take over the role of government as some think. True, big business has profited from it but only because it has presented itself as a great opportunity. The interesting thing is by taking advantage of globalization multinational corporations have made the world more globalized and homogeneous. Multinational corporations have brought together, on mass, people of many cultures that otherwise would not have come together. It’s as though corporation were invented to further and facilitated the process of globalizing and uniting the world.
In his book Wright employs game theory - the logic of “zero sum” and “non-zero-sum”, to tell us what he thinks of globalization. He believes globalization is a nonzero sum enterprise because in the long run there are no losers among the nations of the world. As he sees it, globalization is moving the world in a logical direction, to a point where “relationships among nations are growing more nonzero year by year.” Through globalization the world is becoming a more balanced place. As he suggests, this logical direction has been occurring since the invention of life. I’d like to add that the invention of life was also the beginning of Civilization. As I see it, the intensity of globalization has grown in proportion to the intensity and growth of Civilization.
According to the Wright globalization is a natural process. I agree. One thing that got it started was humanity’s inquisitive nature about what lies beyond. Christopher Columbus’ exploration for a new route to China and his discovery of the New World were acts of globalization. But his travails were also driven by an economic need. Besides being curious and adventurous Columbus also wanted to find a new trade route to China since the traditional land route had become dangerous because of obstructionists in the region. Europe had come to depend on that trade route for resources to sustain its growth and its civilization. Now it was in jeopardy and an alternative had to be found.
Civilization and globalization are related. Their relationship has been a chicken-and-egg one. As Civilization has expanded so has globalization and visa versa. They have fed off each other. Globalization implies expansion and the search for resources elsewhere to sustain local and growing populations. Venice, for instance, was born of such an outward expansion and search by the city of Istanbul. Istanbul was in need of salt which it lacked. The area around Venice was replete with salt. As Istanbul mined the salt Venice grew. In turn, Venice looked outward to expand and fine new markets for its achievements, like those in banking and manufacturing. The technology Civilization has developed, like those mentioned by Wright - the printed word, the wheel, steamships, telegraph, all have contributed to globalization. They have made the world smaller through communications and travel. A hidden reason for Europe’s desire to discover the New World is that it needed its resources. Ships for exploration the world and defending nations were built of wood. Europe’s stock of trees for lumber was dwindling. Spain was financially strapped and almost bankrupt. In the New World it discover gold which replenished in coffers. The New World also became an additional source of food and life sustain technology.
Apart from discovering much needed new sources of material to sustain itself, the Old World also used globalization to ease its growing pains. The closely knitted populations of the Old World were constantly squabbling and in the throws of wars. It needed space to get away from itself. The New World offered that space. Globalization alleviated the tensions that could have completely destroyed the Old World. The New World developed from the Old World’s experience and know-how. In turn, the New World reciprocated by being the Old World’s savior and coming to its aid in two world wars.
Developed nations like Canada and the United States have benefited greatly from globalization. Such nations, and Britain is also a good example of this, tend to grow complacent and uncompetetive in their maturity. It seems to be a natural occurrence, one that is unhealthy and corrosive to a nation’s sustaining powers. Globalization helps to turn this around and keep developed nations vital and healthy. For example, the Canadian and U.S. economies, which had become sluggish and entropic, were revitalized by competition from abroad, especially in the automotive industry. Globalization certainly helped Canada to shape up, giving it the will power to deal with the mounting debt and atrophic ways that were making it unproductive and uncompetetive in the early nineties. Globalization has brought new immigrants to these countries, helping to revitalize their economies with the infusion of “new blood”. Also, globalization has had a way of encouraging accountability and transparency throughout the world, practices that are essential for sustaining nations in the long run.
Globalization has brought the world something else that is beneficial, standardization. With a shrinking world it makes sense that interactive countries standardized there business practices so as to evade confusion and inefficiencies. Imagine banks around the world used different systems. It would be a calamity. Air travel would be dangerous if a standard system didn’t exist to dealt with planes and airports. Because we have become so interdependent it would be foolish not to have a universal monitoring system to check for such things as the quality of food and the spreading of contagious deceases .
Globalization, it seems to me, has been the salvation of humankind. Today it has united the world by engaging it in the central task of economic life. Thanks to it, we have overcome potentially destructive intransigencies such as isolation and protectionism, which in the past have lead to wars. The Cold War between Communism and Democracy would not have been cold, nor would it have ended, if it wasn’t for the restraining and containing powers of globalization. Why, without globalization and its liberating ways the expansion of Democracy would not have been possible.
In conclusion, globalization is about many things. Today, foremostly, its about economic interaction among nations. However, it is also about spreading equality throughout the world, through governance and technology. Uniting the world to make it a safer and more secure place has been one of its goals. It is the logical destiny Wright wrote about. Ironically, though, globalization has had to use perverse and coercive means like corporatism and consumerism to achieve this end.
Wright has the right idea about globalization. Generally, though, globalization is misunderstood. Many people interpret it as a contrivance of multinational corporations and big money interests. They see it as a corporate business plan rather than the natural process it is. With it corporations don’t want to take over the role of government as some think. True, big business has profited from it but only because it has presented itself as a great opportunity. The interesting thing is by taking advantage of globalization multinational corporations have made the world more globalized and homogeneous. Multinational corporations have brought together, on mass, people of many cultures that otherwise would not have come together. It’s as though corporation were invented to further and facilitated the process of globalizing and uniting the world.
In his book Wright employs game theory - the logic of “zero sum” and “non-zero-sum”, to tell us what he thinks of globalization. He believes globalization is a nonzero sum enterprise because in the long run there are no losers among the nations of the world. As he sees it, globalization is moving the world in a logical direction, to a point where “relationships among nations are growing more nonzero year by year.” Through globalization the world is becoming a more balanced place. As he suggests, this logical direction has been occurring since the invention of life. I’d like to add that the invention of life was also the beginning of Civilization. As I see it, the intensity of globalization has grown in proportion to the intensity and growth of Civilization.
According to the Wright globalization is a natural process. I agree. One thing that got it started was humanity’s inquisitive nature about what lies beyond. Christopher Columbus’ exploration for a new route to China and his discovery of the New World were acts of globalization. But his travails were also driven by an economic need. Besides being curious and adventurous Columbus also wanted to find a new trade route to China since the traditional land route had become dangerous because of obstructionists in the region. Europe had come to depend on that trade route for resources to sustain its growth and its civilization. Now it was in jeopardy and an alternative had to be found.
Civilization and globalization are related. Their relationship has been a chicken-and-egg one. As Civilization has expanded so has globalization and visa versa. They have fed off each other. Globalization implies expansion and the search for resources elsewhere to sustain local and growing populations. Venice, for instance, was born of such an outward expansion and search by the city of Istanbul. Istanbul was in need of salt which it lacked. The area around Venice was replete with salt. As Istanbul mined the salt Venice grew. In turn, Venice looked outward to expand and fine new markets for its achievements, like those in banking and manufacturing. The technology Civilization has developed, like those mentioned by Wright - the printed word, the wheel, steamships, telegraph, all have contributed to globalization. They have made the world smaller through communications and travel. A hidden reason for Europe’s desire to discover the New World is that it needed its resources. Ships for exploration the world and defending nations were built of wood. Europe’s stock of trees for lumber was dwindling. Spain was financially strapped and almost bankrupt. In the New World it discover gold which replenished in coffers. The New World also became an additional source of food and life sustain technology.
Apart from discovering much needed new sources of material to sustain itself, the Old World also used globalization to ease its growing pains. The closely knitted populations of the Old World were constantly squabbling and in the throws of wars. It needed space to get away from itself. The New World offered that space. Globalization alleviated the tensions that could have completely destroyed the Old World. The New World developed from the Old World’s experience and know-how. In turn, the New World reciprocated by being the Old World’s savior and coming to its aid in two world wars.
Developed nations like Canada and the United States have benefited greatly from globalization. Such nations, and Britain is also a good example of this, tend to grow complacent and uncompetetive in their maturity. It seems to be a natural occurrence, one that is unhealthy and corrosive to a nation’s sustaining powers. Globalization helps to turn this around and keep developed nations vital and healthy. For example, the Canadian and U.S. economies, which had become sluggish and entropic, were revitalized by competition from abroad, especially in the automotive industry. Globalization certainly helped Canada to shape up, giving it the will power to deal with the mounting debt and atrophic ways that were making it unproductive and uncompetetive in the early nineties. Globalization has brought new immigrants to these countries, helping to revitalize their economies with the infusion of “new blood”. Also, globalization has had a way of encouraging accountability and transparency throughout the world, practices that are essential for sustaining nations in the long run.
Globalization has brought the world something else that is beneficial, standardization. With a shrinking world it makes sense that interactive countries standardized there business practices so as to evade confusion and inefficiencies. Imagine banks around the world used different systems. It would be a calamity. Air travel would be dangerous if a standard system didn’t exist to dealt with planes and airports. Because we have become so interdependent it would be foolish not to have a universal monitoring system to check for such things as the quality of food and the spreading of contagious deceases .
Globalization, it seems to me, has been the salvation of humankind. Today it has united the world by engaging it in the central task of economic life. Thanks to it, we have overcome potentially destructive intransigencies such as isolation and protectionism, which in the past have lead to wars. The Cold War between Communism and Democracy would not have been cold, nor would it have ended, if it wasn’t for the restraining and containing powers of globalization. Why, without globalization and its liberating ways the expansion of Democracy would not have been possible.
In conclusion, globalization is about many things. Today, foremostly, its about economic interaction among nations. However, it is also about spreading equality throughout the world, through governance and technology. Uniting the world to make it a safer and more secure place has been one of its goals. It is the logical destiny Wright wrote about. Ironically, though, globalization has had to use perverse and coercive means like corporatism and consumerism to achieve this end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)