First I would just like to say that I don't really like the word "democracy" as it is a misnomer. All governments of the world that called themselves "democracies" are actually republics. This is a good thing. I don't want to live in an actual democracy and I'm pretty sure that very few other people would either. If one lived in a democracy you would have to vote on everything. You would vote on the budget, you would vote on tax law, you would vote on every minutia of government. In reality it would mean that you would effectively be a part of the house of representatives along with whatever else you do. And not just you but everyone. It would literally paralyse society and nothing could get done. Beyond that, it would be pure majority rule so some of the most puerile but popular sentiments would be enacted into law. An excellent example of this is the California repeal of gay marriage that happened in November. That was pure democracy in action - GREAT! So for the purpose of this treatise the word "democracy" will be used as a place holder for "A Government of representatives that is voted in by the public." That is what everybody thinks democracy is anyway.
But that is really an ancillary notion anyway, because I am here to tell you that NONE of you live in a democracy (be it literal or representative). The last bastions of true representative government (democracy) have more than fallen by the wayside. For the purpose of this argument I will use the United States as a default example of evidence to prove the theory, but most of the observations are apt worldwide, even if they are on a much less egregious scale.
On Tuesday a new "government" will come into administration in the US. It was voted in (we assume fairly) by a majority of voting Americans. This new administration to the casual observer is markedly different to the previous one. It is considered to be more fair and further to the left and indeed it is, but the important thing to think about is how. How is it different, other than superficially, to the previous administration? There is a difference, but the difference is not as we perceive it because no true power actually changed hands. For us to understand that concept we must first understand who has actual power. Is it really the body of government that was just elected? How did the people elected gain enough public awareness to be elected? Someone had to pay, right? But campaign finance is just the tip of the iceberg.
You see the issue is no longer the fact that politicians take money from corporate lobbyists and interest groups that want them to do their bidding. No, it is that these corporations donate to all the candidates of both (all important) parties and are a fundamental and indistinguishable part of actual government. Laws are enacted to serve the interests of business/corporations at all times. Even when someone like Obama speaks of "creating jobs" he is in fact speaking both for the people and for the corporations. The voice has become one and the same. What kind of jobs do you think he is trying to stimulate? There will be no new government positions being made available. This is about how to satisfy big corporate interests and to make it desirable for them to expand the labour force. These new jobs will all be corporate jobs. These new jobs will all make corporations more money than they would lose in salary.
This is not to say that Obama is any more in or out of bed with corporations than the previous administration. The fact is that the question if he is or isn't is irrelevant. He is equally in bed, because his administration is NOT the government. His administration like the ones that came before it acts as an intermediary between the true government (corporations) and the people (voters). Elected officials' role is to represent the people's wishes to the actual government (that is not elected, but rules without limits) so as to form a more peaceful relationship between corporation & worker (see master & slave). The biggest difference between someone like Bush & Obama is which sector will get the most concessions. Will it be the religious zealots (Bush) or the blue collar workers (Obama)? In this sense there is a true difference, but not a fundamental one. Who will be better off might change within the lower classes, but the ability and opportunity for corporations to acquire and hold money & power will not change one iota. The true government has not changed and will not change.
As per my norm, I will post for you an apt photo. In this case, in contemplation.
Only this time it comes in the middle as a much needed break from all of these words!Let us look at the contentious "health care" system in the United States versus Cuba. Cuba is one of the last remaining strongholds of (somewhat*) communism. Cuba spends the least per capita on health care of the nations in the top 25 nations in regards life expectancy at birth. Consequently, they are near the bottom of that top 25. Not surprisingly it is due to a lack of specialized modern machines, but not due to the availability of doctors. Still, considering the lack of funds, to be in the top 25 is impressive. The nation that is right beside them (less than 0.1 years longer in life expectancy) is the United States and they are the nation in the world that spends the most per capita on health care. It's not even that they spend the most, they spend almost double the next highest spending nation does. And what does that get them: A life expectancy equal to that of Cuba. The irony is delicious.
Here is the United States spending billions on fancy machinery and all sorts of things and yet can only manage a life expectancy of one of the poorest nations on the planet. Why is this? It has everything to do with the tiered health care system in the United States. Some people have optimum care, some people have adequate care while others have no care whatsoever. Those at the bottom of the tree, not surprisingly, have high mortality rates and the ones in the middle have only a somewhat better chance of longevity. But the question remains if you are spending so much money shouldn't it even out. Well no, by spending more money on a small group you may be extending their lives by as much as humanly possible, but the others getting sub par care will disproportionately have shorter and unhealthier lives. Because there are more of them they influence the statistics to reflect their situation. But if other countries manage an average of 5 years longer lifespans with half the money spent, why can''t the United States (spending double) get at least equal results? For the answer to this you must follow the money. Unlike the other countries where money spent on health care directly benefits patients in the United States more than half of the money spent on health care winds up in corporate coffers. Either in the medical profession itself (doctors exorbitant salaries) or with insurance companies who are the largest holders of assets. Insurance companies in the United States act like gangsters skimming a percentage off of the money spent on health care, but they don't skim just a percentage, they get the lion's share of the pie.
This is just one order of corporations, there are others in other industries (transportation, media, etc, etc). All of them act in much the same way. Can anything be done about this? The answer is no, not without a serious revolution, because it is not a question of government anymore. They ARE the government. It is already established. They set the laws; they set the rules. The role of elected officials is to operate as best they can under the rule of law of the corporations. Now I know very well that in the rest of the world the insurance health care system analogy is not apt, but I used it to demonstrate a clear line. The way that mass media corporations and others operate throughout most of the rest of the world is exactly same. The simple reason I chose this example was because it is the most concise explanation possible and as you can see this is already a long argument.
I'm not really done here, but I have been writing for two hours and I think I have laid enough groundwork for some kind of understanding. It is important to try to be able to see who really holds power in the world and why. If anyone thinks that politicians hold any true power then they are not seeing the whole scope of life and interactions between policy makers worldwide. Only careful analysis of facts can show these connections and I do not mean to upset anyone by saying that they are not living in a world where the government is accountable to them, but it is a sad reality and the only way that anything will ever change is by first understanding what exactly is going on.
*- No actual communist government as per Karl Marx's manifesto has ever been enacted on earth. Cuba, and other countries in the past, have used a hierarchal government that is loosely based on communist theory but does not employ the bottom up approach & complete freedom that is central to any true communist society.
This is depressing but rather accurate.
ReplyDeleteA big reason change is so incredibly different in the US is that we are spoonfed the idea that capitalism=freedom from the time we are young. And that ANY form of socialism is equivalent to communism which is evil and ultimately bad for everybody. In history class we were taught that communism "looked good on paper" but never worked for real.
The obvious reason for that is what you stated: true communism has never been enacted. (Although, very interesting and something that speaks to my country's psychology: Cuba and other socialist governments in Central and South America were barely explored, if at all. Great detail was gone into with Russia, an already huge and not very unifiable and nation run at different times by different corrupt social elites--and even though it had all those factors against it at the end the "moral" of the Russia unit was "See? Communism didn't work. Good thing it's over now." Cuba, on the other hand--it's like we have a LEARNING embargo as well as a trade embargo on it. I never learned a damn thing about Cuba in any of my AP History classes.)
So anyway--most folks in the US, even blue-collar folks, even the working poor, believe capitalism is a good thing. They believe that it gives them a chance even though right now we're in the long, arduous middle of the monopoly game--where one person has a few monopolies, and another person has Boardwalk and Park Place, and they're making all mutually-beneficial deals with each other while the rest of us scramble around the board stepping as lightly as we can, frantically drumming up money by liquidating and mortgaging the things we own so we can still pay the few powerful players when we land in the wrong spot--we know we're losing in the end, but we can't help but try everything we can to stay in the game anyway. Except--most people in the US don't even know we're losing.
Given the climate, I can kind of understand these attitudes being prevalent in people who don't devote their time to political thought, or are some combination of stupid and ignorant, but really, I don't get the Thinking Conservative--or worse, the Fiscally Conservative Liberal. If you have half a brain, all you have to do is play Monopoly to see how money and power play out and how it leaves us ALL miserable in the end. (This is why I like Monopoly. It reinforces my beliefs and also makes me feel less like a horrible failure for simply being on the wrong end of the money spectrum.)
This one was only four paragraphs. rorie kelly strives for improvement.
That photo of you next to the window is wonderfully dark and pensive and I love it.
ReplyDelete