The Thoughts of a Peasant Philosopher
Volume I: Politics
Written
by
Jason
R. Werbics
Edited
by
Aaron
Taylor
Dedicated
To Nicole
My
Soul Mate And The Greatest Love Of My Life
PREFACE: By
Aaron Taylor
SECTION I: POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC CONSOLIDATION
The Structure of Today’s
Lie
The Little Lie That is
Representational Democracy
THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM AND REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY:
From The Confines Of The
Nation State,
To The First Failed Attempt
Of The Global Economy
Political And Economic
Consolidation of The Mid to Later Twentieth Century
CONTINENTAL EUROPE,
CANADA,
The WTO And The Free Market
SECTION II
PRIMARY DEMOCRACY
The Individual Human Right
to Create Law
Redefining The General Will
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIBERTY OF REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY AND THE FREEDOM OF PRIMARY DEMOCRACY
Preface
By
Aaron Taylor
Marshall McLuhan was right
- we live in a global village.
But while he gave a lot of
thought to how we communicate, he could never have imagined what kind of impact
this idea would have on how we govern ourselves.
As nature tends to evolve
into bigger and more complex systems, so too does business and government tend
towards consolidation. Bigger institutions create a need for more complex
bureaucracies to manage them, bureaucracies that are faceless, nameless and
utterly indifferent to the human condition, a nightmare straight out of the
pages of Kafka.
Long gone are the days when
we think in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ While we stubbornly insist on defining
ourselves as people by increasingly regionalized folk cultures, corporations
are thinking in terms of global market share and government of the people, by
the people, for the people loses market share while becoming ever more protective
and interested in shrinking spheres of influence. The intricacy of individual
human interaction has given way to pandering to the lowest common denominator.
The individual has given way to Mass man.
The Internet however is
starting to change that.
Communication from one part
of an empire no longer takes weeks or months to arrive- it travels at the speed
of light. We don’t have any excuse anymore about not being aware of global
affairs in the most obscure corner of the world – the spark of individualism
flickers as we choose to acknowledge the world on our own terms and in our own
time.
The irony is while it might
be a global village, we still stick to our own neighborhoods. It’s also getting
harder and harder to tell one neighborhood from another as everyone - east and
west - bows before the twin ideals of democracy and the market economy. Really,
what does it matter if you live in the exotic east or the homogenous west, if
you pray to Jesus in the heartland of the north American bible belt or if you bow
to Mecca in the oil rich sands of the middle east when you can still get the
exact same ice cold Coca-Cola?
Previously, explorers set
out to discover new worlds and along the way encountered strange and alien
cultures. The trade routes were tenuous and treacherous. Lines of communication
were virtually non-existent. On maps, there were drawings of the known world,
with the ominous phrase at the edge that said, "Beyond here, there be
dragons..."
If nothing else, the
Internet has taught us that everything leads to everything else. There is a
feeling of sameness about the world now that’s different from the original age
of empire.
This aura of sameness has
also led to an increasing sense of alienation and disassociation - from
ourselves, from each other - helplessness and powerlessness in the face of
bigger businesses that pander to the lowest common denominator and detachment
from governments that grow ever less responsive to the needs and wishes of the
people. The only thing worse than knowing you’re not alone is knowing you don’t
matter.
Government, as the peasant
philosopher defines it, is at least partially the art of managing information.
The Internet is, if nothing else, the democratization of information. It is
quickly surpassing television and even radio as the breaking source of news.
It has also been used as a
tool of democratic action. The now infamous Battle of Seattle, in which a
meeting of signatories of the World Trade Organization was disrupted by an
eclectic group of activists without common ground other than to disrupt the
meeting, was organized through the Internet. The student uprising in China that
led to the Tiananmen Square massacre was spurred on by the Internet after the
authorities cut off other lines of communication.
But the world is no
stranger to revolution and rebellion. What is becoming foreign is responsive
government, private enterprise with a conscience and people who are interested
in taking charge of their own future. The only options are to continue down the
current path and willfully abrogate responsibility of our lives and our future
to the nameless faces walking the corridors of power, or to become actively
involved in determining the political and economic history of the world which
is the birthright of ever human being.
Slavery or freedom, the
choice is ours.
Democracy, free enterprise
and the Internet are a natural fit in that all three rely on a single,
fundamental principle - the freedom of choice.
While combining the
Internet and democracy is not a novel idea, the peasant philosopher provides a
philosophical basis for once more putting the ultimate power of democracy - the
power to make laws - back in the hands of the people.
Primary democracy is, at
its heart, a philosophy of freedom.
Philosophy is the noblest
profession. It is the ultimate endeavor in terms of honor and intellectual
achievement anyone may embark on. In the past, we looked upon the philosopher
with awe and with a sense of inspiration. We looked to the philosopher for
guidance and instruction in regards to the how's and why’s of our world. We
believed in what the philosopher was attempting to construct with his ideas.
But all that has passed.
Today we are confronted
with the argument that philosophy and the philosopher are relics of the past,
with no more importance than that of a historical footnote.
For some people, philosophy
is a very troublesome and frightening concept. Many people throw up their arms
in frustration and walk away when confronted with philosophy. This should not
be the case. When kept to the basics, philosophy can be understood by everyone.
There isn’t anything that
can’t be explained if you’re communicating clearly.
Philosophy rules everyone’s
life. The same rules of existence apply to the poor man and wealthy woman in
equal measure. It does not make sense that for something with such a hold on
ones existence the majority of people in this world don’t have a clue to what
it is. This apathy has not just captured the hearts and minds of the general
public but a majority of our academics, politicians and intellectual elite as
well.
How could we as a species
have all but swept aside that very human endeavor which has helped us out of
the jungles and fields, and into a modern and advanced civilization?
More than anything else
human existence and progress is best expressed through the development of
ideas. It is philosophy which is the messenger of these ideas.
Over the centuries,
philosophy has exposed us to the wonders of the universe. The means by which we
have forged an existence appear varied and, to a degree, somewhat
unpredictable. It would seem that very often progress for our species has been
one of luck and chance. But every step along that path, it was philosophy and
the philosopher that guided our way, changing and creating within it a varied
process of understanding and reason, a process that has as its ultimate goal
the achievement of truth.
We cannot give up dealing
with hard questions for the sake of expediency and easy answers, but we insist
on throwing away anything that we cannot understand. But in so doing, we have
left out a great part of our existence - we’ve stopped looking for the truth
behind an idea.
For me, life has never been
a simple journey that begins with birth and ultimately ends in death. There are
others who feel as I do, that life is more than something to be endured. For
me, life has shown itself to be a journey of understanding and intellectual
achievement that has led me down two specific paths. One, a quest to undo
certain wrongs of the past. The other, to understand the world in which I live
today, as realistically and objectively as possible.
I knew very early on my
life was different from anyone else. My ideas as a child grew rapidly and my
understanding of the world and my place in it followed in step. At certain
points, I found myself asking questions no one could answer to my satisfaction.
Therefore, I made up my own answers as I went along, continually testing them
against the status quo and my personal experience in an attempt to ascertain
their validity.
I keep asking what, or who,
determines the truth behind an idea for us?
Who is to say that this
idea or point of view is right and that one is wrong?
That has always been a
point of great contention for me. Do we listen only to the ideas the majority
of people agree upon? Or perhaps those who know the truth are the ones with the
greatest number of letters behind their name? Personally I have always looked
upon the letters Ph.D. with some skepticism.
In the past it was (or it
would seem) easier to bring forth new ideas or new concepts about the world,
challenging the status quo and thereby expanding the possibility of our understanding
of the world in which we live. In essence it was easier for philosophical
investigation than it is today. Perhaps this is because the free-flow of ideas
has become too politicized and in some instances the defence of politically
correct ideas has taken on a hysterical and shrill quality. Philosophy needs
openness and a free exchange of ideas. For at its very base of existence,
philosophy is nothing more than the concept of a question, with not an answer
as the final outcome of the philosophical process, but more questions.
It is this free discussion
of concepts which allows for further concepts to flourish. If we close off any
aspect of our investigations, we are limiting our ability to comprehend any
part of the truth of our existence.
Ever since I was a little
boy, my thoughts always focused on the metaphysical. For me, the metaphysical
seemed to harbor more interesting questions than anything else. Whether it was
the reason behind the existence of myself or of how I viewed the world, I
needed to know not so much the reason why, or how, but more so the
"what." It was never enough for me to know the reasons why something
existed, or for that matter the plain truth to the existence of a phenomenon.
To know what something is in terms of one’s senses is not a question of knowing
what it is. We are fooled by our senses into thinking that we can categorize
and name objects at will, and that is what they will be forever more. I needed
to go deeper in my search for understanding. I needed to know why the reason
itself existed. I needed to create more questions.
It was this need to always
go further that has been the corner stone to my existence in this world. Never
satisfied with the answers of the present, I searched for the questions of
tomorrow.
Shortly after I started
school I soon found out that the educational system I was forced into did not
make allowances for accommodating my interpretations of the world.
An educational system that
does not allow for new ideas? Anyone who goes to school can understand what I
am talking about. How many people publicly and privately educated have been
told "that question," or ones like it, will be covered next year or
next semester? Then, the following year, one asks the question again only to
find the same answer is given, until the time comes when one is out of the
educational system entirely, with no more teachers to answer questions and
ultimately, with no real answers.
But beyond this hand - me -
down approach to learning, the greatest difficulty I had with education was
what I was being told conflicted with what I believed deep down inside. What I
was being taught did not correlate to what my own intellect accepted as right
and true.
Of great concern to me was
the concept of equality. I saw that this concept held true only under certain
circumstances and not being applied in any way as the term was being used. I
was told individual members of the species were equal. I found this completely
false. The term lacked any real evidence to suggest this was true. Who is equal
to me? No one. Not because I am superior or inferior, but because I am unique.
I am an individual. So how can I be equal or the same as someone else, when
physically, emotionally, mentally, I am constructed differently than everybody
else?
It was this type of
incongruity that taught me the educational system is a closed system. It is a
system that leads itself to indoctrination and not education. It is not
interested in philosophy or the concept of questioning. School is not a place
for a truly inquiring mind to flourish. Certainly an educational system can
teach a great many things that are useful. But it only teaches these things one
way. It does not accept anything other than what it teaches. In essence, what
it teaches is not open for debate.
I have found that
everything in this world is open for debate.
I like to use the analogy
that all of existence, from the very beginning, up to and including the end, is
like a movie. The problem is we walked into the theatre with our popcorn in
hand and enthusiasm high, only to find we missed the beginning of the movie.
Now we have to piece together the plot from the remaining moments of the film.
If it is absolutely necessary, we can ask the person next to us what we missed
at the beginning of the movie. However, when it comes to existence and the
beginning of that great movie, we don't have anybody to ask. We are all forced
to pick up the plot as we go along.
Even if we do figure out
the plot at some point, we still don't know what happened at the beginning of
the movie. This problem does not preclude us from still making assumptions
about the past. But how correct are our assumptions?
Assumptions are nothing but
conjecture. As in a movie, the beginning does not repeat itself somewhere else
along the way. Nor does anything depict in any way the origins of the beginning
of the film.
For instance, did the
credits begin before the music? Was there music? Did the camera open up on a
picture of a tree or a building? When these types of questions are asked, or
more importantly examined from the prospective of our own existence, it shows
we are faced with some daunting problems. Did we have speech or linguistics
before we had the use of tools? Was existence formed by a big bang? Was the
human species born with self-consciousness or was it acquired latter?
All these questions have
answers, but they are also all conjecture from our perspective. Even though we
may not know which answer is correct, there is a truth out there. How can we be
sure there is a truth out there? Because just as when you go to a movie, it has
to have some sort of beginning, so to does our existence.
Truth and existence are the
same. Truth can only exist because existence allows it to. Truth is a combination
of human understanding and physical reality. It exists just as concretely for
those who believe in it, as it will for those who do not.
The key to understanding
truth does not come from our assumptions of the past, but only from our
complete understanding of the present. Everything you ever wanted to know about
existence can be gleaned from that very spot upon which you rest at the
present. It’s this truth that lies at the root of philosophy. Everything that
we know about the present tells us more about the past. It may not tell us in
what specific order things may have happened, but it certainly lets us know
that at some point what was there at the beginning. Furthermore, the better the
present is dissected, the more truth that it reveals. Truth only exists in the
present. It does not have any connection to history or the future. Every
fleeting moment that encompasses the present changes the truth of our
existence.
Aristotle believed in the
here and now. A chair was a chair and that was it. Zen goes beyond this simple
answer to question the very idea of its existence. It is not that the idea of
truth exists within the parameters of these two definitions, but rather that
truth exists outside these borders. For too long we have confined our questions
to those things upon which we are certain. It is time to begin our process of
questioning at that point where our certainties end.
A chair can exist today and
tomorrow, and the question of it’s existence can as well, but what it really is
only exits for the moment.
But before we can stand up
and say that we understand this truth, we have to be sure we understand the
present. And understanding the present only comes from understanding ones place
in existence. If our understanding of the present is incorrect, then we are no
better off than just blindly attempting to conjure up the past through our
simple assumptions.
Who is to say today’s
truths are not tomorrow’s falsehoods? This has been the axiom by which I have
lived my entire life.
I think my personal
uneasiness about the world and how it has been presented to me is born out by
the fact that any real questioning of the world and how it is presented is
always met with an incredible amount of denial from all respected and reputed
sources. This then tells me there are only two possible positions of a truth
one can take from this situation.
First, everything we
currently know is correct. When I say correct, I mean one hundred percent proof
positive, there does not exist any other form of reality and truth has finally
been revealed. We know all there is to know. The life each of us leads exists
exactly the way in which we are told it does.
Second, truth is a closely
guarded secret that exists solely for the convenience of those who can profit
the most from it. Now profit can mean a great many things to different people.
Profit does not necessarily mean money. It can mean proving the existence of a
theory to a scientist, an undeniable hypothesis to the physicist and an
indestructible idea to the philosopher.
For me, I believe in the
latter. If we really did know everything, and truth had finally revealed
itself, then the need for anybody not to question it would be the universal
fact of life. However, as we all know, this is not the case.
Is it possible that
everything we have been taught is correct?
From my perspective I would
say no. Certainly there can be improvements on certain aspects of our
interpretation of the world. It is with this endeavor that I put forth my ideas
to help in our quest for truth.
The following is a
collection of thoughts, ideas, and experiences that I hope will help us
understand where we have been as a species and where we want to end up. This
body of work (divided into volumes and topics) attempts not to ultimately
define what truth is, but expand on what is already known by fostering
inspiration in what it could possibly
be.
For without a better
understanding of what truth may be, we will forever be destined too
misunderstand the how’s, what’s, wherefores and whys of that great movie called
existence which we have as yet seen the end credits.
SECTION I: POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC CONSOLIDATION
INTRODUCTION
From time immemorial man
has struggled to free himself from persecution and slavery. No matter the age,
there has always been this struggle. It is as if we shall never truly be free
from persecution and domination from those who wish to control the world for
their own selfish and personal goals, which have nothing to do with the greater
good of humanity.
As a species, we have the
uncanny ability to ignore the misery of our lives in favor of a lie that is
much easier to live with. We do this to get through the day, when we know to
acknowledge the misery would make life unbearable. By creating within our own
mind a place for ourselves, we can escape the reality of this world that could
only lead to depression and the loss of our own free will to live and survive.
Yet, even the world which
we try so hard to ignore is itself built upon illusion and masquerade. We
perform the routines of our daily lives without truly knowing what or who
causes our plight in life. Although the media claims only to reflect and mirror
the Gestalt of any given day, it none-the-less directs and influences its
citizens according to national and cultural direction founded upon
self-interest. This view of national existence does not necessarily hold true
from one state to another.
However, this is not the
case among certain nation states of this world.
Within a few, their
existence is similar, in regards to both the structure of their government and
that of their economy. Within these states, the lives of its citizens are
remarkably similar. These states are known as representative democracies. Most,
if not all, of these particular states are found within the western world. They
have existed for nearly two hundred years and each has been built upon a lie no
one can truly figure out.
That lie is who holds
power.
In the past, it was always
easy to figure out who our oppressors were. Two such organizations were the
aristocracy and the church. But who holds power today over the people of these
western representative democracies?
We are told by the
academics, the elite, the media, that it is the individual who has the right to
vote and is ruler, not slave.
Even though the right to
vote seems like a choice when viewed in regards to the consequence it
represents, this right rings hollow and meaningless. For instance, we find
ourselves bound to laws, regulations and rules that were never agreed to or
discussed publicly. Nor are our lives our own, when we are forced to seek
menial, undignified and part-time work, with the alternative being that we
starve and let our own families perish, when an adequate system of support for
those who fail in their attempt to better themselves does not exist.
The truth about today is
that the working poor and the middle class of the western world are caught in a
vice. With representational democracy on one side and an emerging global
economy on the other, each is exerting untold pressure on those caught in the
middle. Who are those that are caught in the middle? The same people who have
been at the mercy of the wealthy and well connected since our civilization
began, the working poor and middle class.
Politically and economically
life has become increasingly unbearable for these two classes. Life is no
longer one of simple existence, but one of struggle to make ends meet. From the
latch-key kid forced to fend for himself in the inner-city, to the over
stressed and over worked suburban couple with the dual income, life is no
longer to be savored but endured.
Compounding things even
more, is legislative gridlock on one side and the rise in power and authority
of investment law (economic globalization). It will not be long before those
caught in the middle of this vice will have no protection from prosecution or
exploitation.
But with the right to vote,
aren’t all citizens equal and masters of their own destiny? If we, the
electorate, the ones who can vote, are not the ruler, who is? Isn’t democracy
defined as government by the people for the people? Is that not what we were
promised at the end of the 17th and 18th centuries when the winds of revolution
swept away the aristocracy and the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire? Rule over
ourselves, the power to do with our lives however we please that is what we are
promised if we put our faith in the idea of democracy.
What about the concept of a
free market society? Isn’t that built on the idea of choice and the right of
the individual to have power over that choice? How can something which adheres
to the idea of the contract and a free market society be oppressive and in any
way subjugating? Yet the fact remains that those who put the most into such an
economy get the least in return. Today the corporation has equal standing in
the courts as the individual does. The right to choose from ten brands of
toothpaste is useless if there is no clean water to rinse ones mouth with.
Or what good is a high
paying job, if the majority of one’s wages only buys the necessities of life?
Those who take risks in today’s free market will never be truly rewarded. But
the fact remains that in a free market society the wages offered to the
majority of people who are forced to work, in order to have sustenance, is not
enough to live a comfortable life on.
Unemployment, although at
historical lows remains as high as ever for those millions in the western world
who cannot find work. Medical care is out of reach for those who do not hold
insurance, and even malnutrition for many of the working poor of these western
representative democratic states, is a fact of life.
If democracy, which has
been totted as the best possible form of government ever created is not what it
is held to be and the idea of capitalism is damaging to the concept of human
freedom, what is there left? Is it possible that we are incapable of creating a
political and economic system that cannot exist without some form of
subjugation of the majority of the people of this planet? Or have such great
ideas as democracy and capitalism been hijacked and corrupted by those who
could profit the most by their alteration in definition and meaning? If so, how
did all this come to pass?
The answers to such
questions do not necessarily live in the present, for the present is far too
saturated with the propaganda of those who control the western representative
democratic state. To search for the answer to today’s questions, it is
necessary to look to the past and how the fabric and meaning of today was manufactured
and by who. Only through an examination of the past is it possible to see that
the ideas of democracy and capitalism still ring true with the possibility of
freedom and prosperity for the individual of the nation state. By looking to
the past we can see how the philosophers and thinkers really envisioned
democracy instead of the lies perpetrated on the people of the western world.
By examining the past, one
will find that the definition of democracy has been altered and the idea of
capitalism has been distorted from its original foundations. Only through such
a shift of the definition of democracy was it possible to accommodate those who
wish to rule for their own sake. Capitalism, too, had its rules altered so
those which regulate it could take it in a direction it was never intended to
go.
But how did all this become
entangled in such deceit? And how does one go about reversing the damage done
and that is currently being done by the anti-democratic representative
democracies of the western world, and their capitalistic free market system? It
is these two question that this work attempts to answer and then address with
ideas of fundamental change that can alter and undo the damage that has been
done.
This work is divided into
two sections. The first explores how and why, this lie was sold to the people
of the western nation states. Once the lie that is representative democracy is
sketched out for all to see, this work then explores how and why the idea of
capitalism was allowed to grow beyond a simple economic model into a universal
code of law that today threatens the right of the individual to live a life
that is his or her own. From there it searches out the reasons why both ideas
of representative democracy and the free market system have worked hand in hand
to create a world of oppression that has never been seen before.
The second part addresses
the need to adjust and change this reality of oppression and subjugation, with
an approach that exemplifies the classical definition of democracy that adheres
to the principle and ideals that were set down by the original architects so
long ago.
The Structure of Today’s
Lie
The idea of politics and
economics is rooted in the concept of power. Each revolves around the central
idea of controlling the masses to produce a single unified approach to managing
the present and building for the future.
Politics exists within
every nation state upon this planet. Politics is the means by which humans
control one another in an attempt to co-exist together. Without politics, we
would still remain a savage beast, without regard for anything remotely
civilized. Economics is directly related to the distribution and the control of
goods and services that allow for human existence and prosperity. Through its
laws, regulations and rules it is the tool upon which politics relies for
stability and social control.
To better understand the
extent to which politics and economics have over one’s life, it is first
necessary to figure out what aspects of these two ideas directly affect you in
your position in the world.
I am sure, that there are
countless numbers of persons out there who have no idea about how to go about
describing their own current political and economic system. Is it a democracy?
If it is a democracy, is it a representational democracy? Is it a liberal or
non-liberal version? What came first, democracy or capitalism? What is the
difference between freedom and liberty? Why should I care about any of the above?
Now that last question no
doubt rings loud and clear for many. The apathy found within the populations of
today’s western nation states is at a level never been seen before. For most,
these questions are of little or no concern. The youth are too busy having fun.
The old too busy trying to stay one step ahead of bankruptcy. By understanding
and knowing the answers to these questions it is possible to get to the root of
today’s problems.
The answers to these
questions are the invisible wires that control your life.
They are the reason that
the single mother resides on welfare. They are the reason why it is impossible
to pay your bills. They explain why the youth of today have no future. Poverty,
crime, addiction, can all be attributed to each and every question that
concerns the make-up of today’s western representative democratic state.
But once these questions
are addressed, there exists another set of questions that become as equally
important. In particular, how and why did representational democracy and
capitalism become the all encompassing ideas that rule without opposition or
alternative today?
For the past century and a
half, there has been a war between four specific concepts in politics and
economics. On the one hand there is the idea of representational democracy and
capitalism. On the other side of the fence are the ideas of communism and
socialism. We have fought numerous wars to see who shall rule and have
dominance of the world and its people. In the end, it was capitalism and the
idea of representational democracy that won out.
With the fall of the Soviet
Union, the discrediting of communism and the socialist ideal here at the end of
the millennium, representational democracy has positioned itself as the main
system of government upon this planet, with the idea of capitalism clinging to
its coat tails. Certainly there are still tiny pockets of socialism and
communism left. There even exist a number of dictatorships and totalitarian
states that dot the globe with their archaic idealism. But when all is said and
done, the world as a whole, is moving or has moved into a system of
representational democracy and embraced the free market.
With the last possible
challenger to the ideas of representational democracy and capitalism vanquished
from the arena, these two ideas now dominate the world. Yet, many of the
fundamentals which comprise each have never been truly challenged. Certainly
when compared to the challengers of the past (communism and socialism),
representational democracy and capitalism were alternatives that not only
looked far more appealing, but worked much better when tested and put into
practice. But now that there is no challenger, how appealing are these two
systems which today dominate the world?
Even though communism and
socialism lost in the end, they did show with their own rhetoric that
capitalism and the idea of representational democracy have their faults,
especially exploitation of the worker and an underlying issue of limited
economic opportunity for everyone. Even at the height of the Cold War, the
rhetoric never really explored these faults to the level it needed to really
address the underlying oppression and subjugation that even representational
democracy and capitalism are built upon. Unfortunately, the debate here in the
western world focused more upon the economic model of each combatant, without
any real attention focused at the fundamentals of how each government, or style
of government functioned.
Ironically, if this had
happened, it would have been seen that both the communist system and that of
the representational democratic state were bound to a structure that utilized
the principles of democracy in a similar fashion. As an example, the Politburo
of the former Soviet Union was an elected body. It was elected along the same
lines and with the same principles as the United States Senate and Congress, in
essence allowing neither population of these two ideological systems any more
freedom than the other. Certainly there were the big differences in the levels
of individual movement, expression, and association. But the fact remains there
was a distinctive split in those who ruled and those who did not, those who had
wealth and those who did not, between those who have power, and those who do
not.
The reason for this is seen
only now, when there is no opposition to the ideas of representational
democracy and capitalism. For it is now evident that the structure and the
system of representational democracy is so well hidden and protected from
possible usurpation or political upheaval, that although it does offer a
somewhat open society, it is still a limited and controlled environment for its
people to exist by creating an artificial atmosphere of democratic process and
outcome.
Together with legislative
control and the domination of the wealthy through their economic stranglehold
found within the oligarchies and monopolies within the capitalistic free
market, there is no possibility of change within the western nation states that
are dominated by representational democracy and capitalism. There is a lock on
the power of the state that was placed there long ago, when the battle for
supremacy on this planet was just about to begin.
In today’s western world
there exist two major stumbling blocks to the eventual freedom of the
individual from persecution and oppression. The first is representative
democracy. The second and more ominous is a global economy. In particular, it
is what is commonly referred to as investment law which is the real threat to
individual freedom and fulfillment.
Today the western world is
a dark and bleak expanse in which millions of people live in squalor and
poverty. Addiction, abuse and violence are a way of life. The possibility of
economic survival dwindles as each day passes. Many of the individuals that
make up the majority of the population of western representative democracies
are confronted with much of the same, as those in the developing world in terms
of economic prosperity and access to venture capital. Yet, this was not what
was promised to the people of the west, nor to the world, if the ideas of
representational democracy and capitalism were allowed to reign supreme.
For many in the western
world, there existed in the past much in the way of a social safety net that
helped to ease the burdens of people who found themselves displaced and at a
disadvantage. Brought forth through socialist thinking in the early 20th
century, social spending was seen by some as a progression in human compassion
and caring for ones fellow human being. Everything from a safe and able health
care system to the possibility of a pension to carry one through ones
retirement years was introduced to much of the population of the western world
before the Cold War.
In fact, during this
specific time frame, even though the rich may have gotten richer, the working
poor and middle class thought of themselves as being better off as they saw
themselves slowly acquire a pittance of wealth and prosperity that they never
knew before. Their life was not one of misery as their ancestors had known it
to be. It was a life of reasonable comfort. In those early days of
representational democracy, power did seem to reside not only in the hands of
the rich and the elite of the nation states, but also in the people. The
governments of the day were given back to the people, in the form of social
programs and social spending.
Even corporate spending on
the employee was substantial in regards to the benefits and salaries paid to
their workers. Pension plans, health care and other such benefits were seen as
the standard of the day. Poverty was soon to be a thing of the past. The good
life was said to be right around the corner for all. All that was needed was
for communism and socialism to be defeated before the utopia of representational
democracy and capitalism could begin.
Well, communism and
socialism have been vanquished from the political and economic arena. Yet
today, there is no utopia found in the western representational democratic
states. The basic promise of prosperity and political liberty is not being kept
or enforced by today’s governments and economic bodies of authority.
In years past, the
oppression and subjugation people were bound too was hard to distinguish due to
the fact that much of what was being given to the population of the western
world was done so through subterfuge and deceit. It is only today that the
injustice and the lies upon which the western nation state is built are visible
to the naked eye. All that was given in the past was done strictly for the purpose
of securing for the
future a powerful and all
encompassing platform upon which the wealthy and well connected rule over the
western nation state.
In much of the western
world today, the millions who find themselves within the ranks of the poor and
middle class are finding that most if not all that was given in the past in the
form of social programs and spending is gone. Programs that once allowed for a
decent standard of living have vanished. Health care, a fundamental for living
in today’s world, in most western nation states has now become a luxury that
cannot be afforded by the middle class and is an impossibility for the poor.
Even the corporations and
the trans-nationals have turned their backs on the worker. Through their
skilful manipulation and marketing techniques, downsizing and right sizing have
become the buzzwords for corporate profitability. The pension is now all but
gone. Health benefits remain only for those white collar workers high enough on
the corporate hierarchical ladder that can demand them. Salaries have been
slashed. The idea of the raise exists no more. Lifetime employment is now
something only read about in the history books.
Despite the outcry of the
masses to what has taken place, the politicians of the western world dully
elected and supposedly governing with the will of all the people, continued on
this course of reversal, dismantling program after program which helped
maintain a decent standard of living for those who could not completely help
themselves. Across the west, billions have been slashed from social spending
budgets. But the carnage did not stop there.
Laws have been passed in
every major western representative state over the years to privatize and even
eliminate state run agencies which only enhanced the life of its citizens by
keeping the necessities of life affordable. Furthermore, other laws that were
aimed solely at the protection of the worker, especially workers who are
injured and could be forced back to work at an earlier stage in their recovery
not based upon medical advice, but rather company structured programs more
concerned with productivity than the health of the worker, have been
eliminated.
The trend continues. Much
of the western world is talking about going to a four day work week from the standard
five, slashing the already miniscule 40-hour work week to 35- hours, creating
even fewer full time positions within the economy in favor of part-time help.
The majority of jobs created in any western nation today are part-time where
employers are not required to pay benefits of any kind. Part-time work is now
the standard for much of the working world as it moves away from the needs and
wants of the full-time employee.
These are just a few of the
examples that can be seen in any western nation state founded upon the
principle of representative democracy and the free market. Where is the
protection of the individual from persecution from their own government? Where
is the protection of the individual from exploitation? It was there in the past
- the social programs, the social spending. Is it possible that this is just a
phase that all western representative democratic states are going through? Have
we elected the wrong people into power? What happened to the power that we all
supposedly had in our lives over our own destinies? Does that too just need a
new politician to bring it back?
Or is it, that we the
individuals of these states, never had any power to begin with? There is reason
to believe that the influential and the wealthy of the state have had it all
the time and it is only now when this new aristocracy has become so powerful in
both political and economic terms, that the poor and middle class of these
western representative democratic nation states are without recourse or
protection from slavery, subjugation and tyranny.
Unfortunately the answer to
this question is yes. Consumerism is not an ideology that can replace choice
and liberty. Within the current system, like the very one in which the people
were enlisted en mass to defeat, they now find themselves without choice and
liberty, forced to endure a life that others dictate to them, forced to live a
life that is not their own.
But how does one go about
changing such a system?
Many have tried and failed.
An entire ideology was defeated in the process of trying to undo the workings
of representational democracy and capitalism. With so many checks and balances
in regards to the structure of power in a representational democratic state, no
one truly knows who holds power, or who controls what. That in essence is part
of the reason why it is so difficult to undermine the authority of such a
system. Control the legislative branch, and then there is the bureaucracy and
the judiciary that stand in ones way. Maintain control of the bureaucracy and
neither of the other two, then one is cornered again.
This of course does not
even take into consideration the economic factor of the nation. The wealthy and
the influential and their power must also be factored into the equation. But
with this component one can never be too sure where and how it is used. In
today’s world of high finance and international dealings, one can never be too
sure who controls what and at what level either. With cleaver manipulation and
misinformation, those who control much of the direction and outcome of the
worlds financial affairs do so without opposition and unnecessary input from
the common people. It is not really possible to understand who rules over the
masses, but it is possible to explore and understand how it is done.
The key to understanding
and undoing the damage that is now being done in the present is knowing the
past and how representational democracy was brought in as a form of government
to compliment the emerging free market economies of the western world. Alone,
it would have been impossible for either representational democracy or
capitalism to survive. But working together, success was all but guaranteed.
The Little Lie That is
Representational Democracy
It is not my intention to
go back through history and explain the entire process by which many of the
western nation states developed their versions and definitions of democracy. I
will concentrate on one aspect of democracy that all western nations have in
common - the change in definition and the process by which democracy, as it was
originally envisioned, has been altered to a single unified version espoused by
all of today’s western representative democracies.
This change of definition
is the corner stone upon which the rulers of today govern the various western
nation states in the name of democracy, a change in definition that was brought
about without the consent of the population, a change of democracy so drastic
it amounts to nothing less than a lie. But the more that is known about how the
definition of democracy changed, the more that will be known that that which
passes today as freedom and liberty are not the principles and the vision of
philosophers and thinkers of the past, but are strictly controlled and limited
versions of such principles that exist only in name. Once exposed, this lie
will reveal to everyone that what exists today as democracy, is not a democracy
at all.
Even though there has been
great progress over the years to allow for greater individual growth and
development in representative democratic states, it is still possible to argue
that just the opposite has occurred. From this writer’s point of view, any
state that adheres to the idea of representational democracy, is perhaps the most
tightly controlled society in the world. Ask yourself this: how do states with
millions and millions of people refrain from falling into anarchy or conflict?
The only possible answer is the simplest one: state control and more
importantly, the rule of law.
Through the various
mechanisms that guide social behavior, to the very essence that is the rule of
law, those who rule today’s western nation states are guaranteed of a continued
existence of the status quo. The mechanisms and fundamental underpinnings of
the "free contract" were put in place in the past to control and
limit the amount of power any individual member, or group, beyond the
establishment of society may control in a representative democratic nation
state. What was achieved in the past was a dispersal of power among certain
institutions and individual bodies of authority throughout the legislative,
executive and judiciary branches of government that, although indirectly
accountable to the people of the state, are in a sense autonomous in nature.
Today the structure of
these institutions allows for a continued supremacy of power among an elite,
along with a continued assurance of the status quo, no matter who may occupy
the seats or positions within these pillars of power. It is like being the head
of a large corporation. You may be elected to the board as the chairperson and
you may decide that even though your company is in the business of making
radios, you would like to make automobiles. But, in the end, despite all your
attempts to change the direction of the company, you will still be making
radios. And all that will have happened is that you will be removed from your
position and someone who is only interested in making radios will once again be
elected chairperson.
What is not permitted is
fundamental change. The opportunity for dynamic change is not allowed or
tolerated. Growth and prosperity are not given the opportunity to flourish
within their own sphere of influence. This is how the structure of
representative democracy works. It is specifically structured to allow for
uninterrupted control over the state, in both political and economic terms.
The interesting thing about
today’s political reality and the original version of how democracy was defined
is how far apart they are from each other. The above example of the individual
who wanted to change the direction of the company from making radios to making
automobiles was known to the thinkers of the past. Certainly not is such
specific terms as the example, but the principles behind the example were
known. They were confronted with the same problem of government in their own
time as today’s western population. Government, when it is structured as such,
does not allow for change. Nor does it allow for all people to participate in
the process in an equal fashion.
That is why the ideas and
principles of democracy were defined as they were, to allow for greater access
by everyone on an equal level. But, it was also structured in such a way as to
allow for change to occur as the people of the state willed it. Democracy in
the past had always been defined as rule for the poor, by the poor. Many in
today’s society have forgotten this fact for the simple reason that democracy
is not defined like that today.
If one were to look around
the western world and the democracies which exist, this traditional definition
seems to have been replaced by something quite the contrary. Democracy has been
corrupted by a different definition that has as its credo less to do with the
poor of the state and more with the wealthy and politically well connected. How
could this have happened? The greatest concept in human politics itself
corrupted?
This deviation was brought
about early in the birth of the western nations as they embraced the economic
ideology called capitalism. Capitalism, founded upon great technological
growth, needed a system of government which would allow it the greatest
possible flexibility. This flexibility and ability to maneuver without
interference, was only possible if it could be cemented in law and continually
administered through the legislative and executive authority of the nation.
Capitalism needed the most unrestricted, yet legally binding, form of
government possible. It needed a form of government that could provide
protection for the wealthy and their investments on the one hand, while on the
other, provide the correct type of atmosphere that could get everyone into the
race equally, but still maintain the control and power over the masses.
Capitalism is built around
two very basic principles. The first is the need for all business to compete
with as little governmental interference as possible. The industrialists and
capitalists of the past knew, as those of today know, that any interference
from government in the free market system will weaken profits and greatly
diminish the possibility of growth. Second, capitalism needs a form of
government where citizens are given the right amount of liberty to allow for
their movement and ability to grow as individuals, yet without allowing the
masses in general to create enough capital and wealth to compete with those who
were already wealthy. This for the simple fact that it is the population or the
masses of the state which create wealth for business. Without the people of the
state involved in the economy to the fullest, not as competitors but
participants and workers of every kind, then it is impossible for capital to be
generated. Thus the beginning of the contradiction between the traditional
definition of democracy and the political system needed by the wealthy and
powerful of the time. It became necessary that in some way there become a new
definition of democracy.
Democracy and its
principles of openness and equality provided everything the capitalists and
industrialists of the time needed to start their economies, except of course
for one thing - the basic tenant of the traditional definition of democracy as
rule for the poor, by the poor. This was the problem. The capitalists and
industrialist knew back then that if the poor of the state ruled, there would
be no possibility of a capitalist economy. There would be no way that the poor
of the emerging industrialized nations would allow for their own exploitation
for profit. Thus what was needed was a system that could take the best of democracy,
from the view of the capitalist, and merge it with a system that could still
effectively guarantee political control in the hands of those that already ran
these western states.
Many of the western
democracies which exist today were liberal minded states long before they were
democracies. As power moved from the hereditary kings and queens to the people
en mass, much of the intellectual thinking of the time could be summed up with
three little words "liberty, fraternity, equality." It is this sentiment
which is the foundation of much of the liberal ideology. The liberal view,
although steeped in the rights of the individual and much of what was then
defined as natural law, offered quite a different picture in terms of political
invention. In particular, the liberal definition of democracy had little to do
with the needs of the poor and more to do with the politics of choice. It was
this fact that was the key to the successful change in the definition of
democracy from its traditional definition to what exists today. The key to this
new definition was that choice was seen more in terms of the collective or the
need of the group than in terms of individual ability. It was this liberal
version of democracy that fell more into the realm of political choice of the
party system than individual choice, that found favor with the capitalists and
industrialists. This came about from the liberal view that the collective is
the best and appropriate way of guaranteeing the rights of the individual. This
was the key for the capitalists, for it allowed for the control which was
needed in order to maintain their power over the masses, both in political and
economic terms.
Now, to a certain degree
there is nothing wrong with putting the needs of the collective before the
individual. The need to protect minority rights is essential to keep a society
healthy, vibrant and equal. However, the liberal view is far more reaching in
scope and definition. The liberal view imposes upon society the views of the
majority before the minority. The liberal view of democracy and its
artificially structured political process placed far more emphasis on the
politics of choice and that of the party system than rule by the individual or
the poor. It was an interesting spin upon the idea of rule by the majority that
the early liberal democratic states placed upon the central concept of
democracy.
In essence, it said to the
masses of the nation 'Here is your right to vote in the general election and
here are your candidates. Through these people who are your representatives,
the country will be run. So cast your ballet in total freedom of choice and
there your democracy shall exist.’
In the end, all that was
accomplished was that the individual of the state was bound to a democratic
process of choice consisting of a field of candidates affiliated with a
political party that had nothing to do with the poor or the majority. By
placing the political process in the confines of a party system, the wealthy of
these emerging industrialized western representative democratic states assured
themselves of total control by maintaining the power of the state, not in the
people or the majority, but within the structure of the political parties that
are controlled through the contributions and wealth of the political and
economic elite.
It is this very situation
which still exists today. As in the past, today’s democracies are not so much
rule for the poor, than rule by the rich to control the poor, making democracy
not a democracy at all and altering the definition of the most noble and
enlightened concept the human mind ever conceived.
It is this change in
definition from rule by the poor, to that of the rich over the poor, that
constitutes nothing more than a usurpation of the right of the individual of this
world to exist in relative freedom without oppression. This is the little lie
we have all bought in to. This is today’s lie of representational democracy.
THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM AND REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY:
From The Confines Of The
Nation State, To The First Failed Attempt Of The Global Economy
With the political
foundation of representational democracy laid, the free market could now expand
and grow. The free market is linked to the development of the concept of the
nation state and nationalism. If one can understand the development of the
nation state within the European context, then one can understand the idea of
the free market, and how it matured over the years into today’s greater system
of capitalism.
Although the origins of the
nation state can be traced as far back as the 16th Century, it did not really
take shape until the revolutions of the 17th and 18th Centuries in Europe and
North America. In European terms the nation state was the logical outcome of
European history. The French Revolution itself, perhaps more than anything
else, played the catalyst to a new era of European geopolitical history. From
the revolution, the idea of one people, directly linked to one another through
one culture, one language and one history, formed in essence the modern nation
state. From the example of the French, the rest of Europe - and the world-
followed in step.
With philosophers like Hobbes and John Locke and their contributions to the enlightenment, their works mainly refined what the people of the time had already known. But it was also the fledgling capitalists that knew only through the nation state was it possible to direct the national economy for his own interest. Slowly, as the nations of Europe took shape in modern form, the old ways were swept aside for the new. Mercantilism was replaced with the free market and the aristocracy