Cross posted from EuroTribune. I don’t think I’ve ever posted a diary here on Booman before. But I thought this might be of interest to people here. Mostly, you know, I’m aware of Booman Tribune’s desire to claim a space a bit to the left of DailyKos. And, well, this is pretty far left. So I thought you might like some envelope-pushing around here. Curious to see the response, anyway.
Frequently asked questions:
Is Chavez a Dictator, or does he respect Democracy?
Is Putin an Autocrat or Strong Leader?
Is the US a Representative Democracy or a Plutocracy?
Is Nationalism always Fascism?
Can Socialism and a Free Market co-exist?
I’m an expert in neither political science nor economics, and don’t want to survey in one blog entry what academics will spend their entire lives trying to wrap their brains around. Not unless someone’s offering me tenure.
But I have the unsettling feeling that we’ve entered a chapter in history when the dictionary is failing us. Words have lost their meaning. And we are confused – not just by the insanity we read in the news, but by our own inability to express just what’s insane about it. First I though it was just me, in the throes of shock, having witnessed my own dear country’s tail spin into despotism. Then I read that diary about our brains and was reminded once again that when you have a square and life hands you a circle, it might just be that what you’ve been calling a square is, in fact, not one at all.
So I’d like to take a step back and shine a light on some things we’ve been taking for granted, which have been the foundations for our positions on all issues, and suggest that they are just ill formed ideas (the nerve, I know…) and that any solutions will require radically altering our way of describing the world. I’m not advocating “re-framing” but putting these words into the museums where they belong.
Catalogue of works slated for the Natural History Exhibit:
Democracy: literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, “people,” and kratos, “rule”). The methods by which this rule is exercised, and indeed the composition of “the people” are central to various definitions of democracy, but useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people.
Used in a sentence:
Capitalism: economic system based on the production of commodities for sale, exchange, and profit; and private ownership of the means of production. Contemporary capitalism is often described as the free market economy or free enterprise economy, with reference to the distribution of income largely through the operation of markets.
Used in a sentence:
Free Market: a market where price is determined by the unregulated interchange of supply and demand. … According to a more philosophical definition, a free market is a market where trades are morally voluntary and therefore free from the interference of force and fraud. … Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace and the free market is preserved.
Used in a sentence:
“Free-market drives cheat’s ‘coursework-to-order’ cost as low as £2.70”
Socialism: a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.
Used in a sentence:
Communism: a political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.
Early forms of human social organization have been described as “primitive communism.” However, communism as a political goal generally is a conjectured form of future social organization which has never been implemented.
Used in a sentence:
Authoritarian: a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures.
In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security.
Used in a sentence:
Dictatorship: absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
Used in a sentence:
Nationalism: a form of identity that holds that (ethnically or culturally defined) nations are the “fundamental units” for human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is “the only legitimate basis for the state”, and that “each nation is entitled to its own state.” Nationalism also refers to the specific ideologies of various nationalist movements, which make cultural and political claims on behalf of specific nations.
Used in a sentence:
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Used in a sentence:
:::
As you can clearly see, these models are quite wide open to interpretation. So much so that they’ve lost their meaning. Less subjectively, not one appears to be a comprehensive ideology and thus they must learn to co-exist to varying degrees, depending on the preferences of the leaders or their constituents and practicality. Meaning? No holy grails in here. No laws governing the Universe, no sacred cows, no perfect ideal.
I do not have new words to replace those which have failed us. We can talk about “Social Democrats” and “Democratic Libertarians” and “Free-Market Liberals.” Hell, you can also call yourselves “National Socialists” and “Neo-Communists” (I just made that up, sure there’s some angsty teen out there who’ll embrace it.) These remind me of the infinite sects of Christianity. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a human who doesn’t believe it’s wrong to let people starve to death. You’ll also be hard pressed to find 2 people who are in complete agreement about how to create a world without starvation.
Like religions, political ideologies are systems of belief (if you share everything, everyone will be fed; if you have elections, the people will have their voices heard; if you do the right thing you, will go to heaven) and no one has yet accounted for every variable. No physicist, no yogi, no political scientist nor economist. The only people who have come close are the atheist and anarchist who at least acknowledge the lies we tell ourselves, but who have, alas, yet to propose a viable system of anything of their own.
I’ll let someone else come up with the new ideal paradigm.
But I do think that we need to question the usage of the terms in the artillery of the media and politicians and ideologues. As every time we hear “WMD’s” we need to demand proof, every time we hear “Democracy” we need to do the same. WMD’s? Where? Democracy? For/By whom?
We also need to publicly acknowledge the inefficiency of all these terms and of the systems they refer to. Acknowledge, honestly, that our frustration comes from our own unwillingness or inability to step outside the box in which we were shipped to this world and not from the stubbornness of the circle which refuses to be a square.
And we must stop endorsing or dismissing any nation, leader or system on the basis of our visceral response to the name given to their style of governance, and begin assessing their merit based on the prosperity, safety and dignity of their people and their respect for that of peoples not under their rule. Is Bush a Dictator? Is Europe Socialist? Is Putin running a Democracy? Is Chavez a Commie? Yes and No. So what? What does it prove or accomplish? Nada, folks. ничего.
Are the people of America or Europe or Russia or Venezuela allowed to live in prosperity, safety and dignity? Do the actions of their leaders respect the prosperity, safety and dignity of the people of France, Nigeria, Iran? Now we can begin to talk about problems and solutions.
Terms like Democracy and Dictatorship, Capitalism and Communism are absolutes which work well when trying to win hearts and minds, when creating mythology and covering your ass for committing atrocities. I myself have warm fuzzy responses to the ideas of Democracy and Communism (and one day I will create a utopia in which we will have both, and I will rule it with an iron fist, forcing everyone to vote in every election, shop at co-ops and save the whales.) But in the daily work of protecting human rights, feeding & educating people, creating opportunity and maintaining civil society, there seems to be a direct, inverse, relationship between the faith placed in these ideas and their odds of success.
Mind you, I am not advocating some kind of moral relativism (ok, a little, but much less than we currently see in our governments.) I’m not advocating for dictatorships. I’m just saying that “dictator” rather loses its rabid bite when the people keep electing one. And democracy, that shining city on the hill, fades in attraction when you find out its inhabitants are dying for lack of healthcare…