Reader Speaks Out: Psychology of Dissent
This is the first installment of a full post from a regular reader. I hope that during my absence these will continue to flow in. Hopefully this will motivate others to create their own full length post. I also hope that this will initiate some dialogue. The only changes that I made to it were cosmetic, nothing regarding substance. If you did not drop in this weekend and are confused by this, please read the previous two posts. They will explain what we are doing. Thanks to Murph for the contribution.
Cyclone
Psychology of Dissent
It is certain that some percentage of the American public is very unhappy with the current state of affairs in this country. It runs the full gamut, from rage to mild criticism. For those of us who lean into the spectrum of rage, or at least over the half way line, we have a problem. We become so concerned with naming the problem and bashing the perpetrators that we can become obsessed with that aspect of our discontent. This obsession can be called by an old name the, 'Aint It Awful' game, and often leads to the 'kick me' game.
Briefly, 'Ain't It Awful' means that you spend all your time bitching and complaining about something and offer no solutions. You never see another side of the criticism and never see the good parts of the situation. I know that I play this game a lot, and I really have to be conscious of it not becoming an obsession. When it becomes an obsession, it stops the critical thinking process and leads to 'kick me' in which you set yourself up for always being a victim. (By the way, these terms were part of the analysis of behavior from Transactional Analysis, which does a good job of defining behavior in general and specific terms) Despite any other criticism of this system, it does do a good job of identifying self destructive behavior.
The fact that the more liberal part of our society engages in 'Aint It Awful' today, has earned liberal thinking with the label of whiney, bitching wimps who can't recognize a good thing if they see it. It would be far more valuable to take the situation, examine it for faults, and begin formulating a cohesive line of thought for remedies. On this site, there seems to be at least a consensus of agreement that the current situation is very bad to critical. Ok, we all agree with that. Now what?
It is becoming alarmingly apparent that the more vocal dissent in the general population might be shut down by various means. Writers of some note have been harassed, put on no fly lists, had web site shut downs, and have suffered character assassination. It is probably going to get worse as the present structure loses traction nationally and internationally. That puts anyone that is strident about their dissent in danger of this type of harassment or maybe even worse. And indeed, such thinking and verbalization of dissent is going to be going against the social grain at this time. I suspect that Rep. Ron Paul is going to be even further marginalized for his speech that was posted on this web site. Maybe worse. This type of suppression has occurred with far more regularity than most people realize. With the present technology, anything other than face to face familiarity with people you believe to not be in on the oppression is pretty much the only non exposure way to go.
The point is, we can bitch and moan over all kinds of stuff and not draw too much attention, unless of course we really piss off someone with the ambition and power to shut us up. It gets rough when you get right down to the specifics, the groundwork of the problem and start advocating changes. Then, you do get the attention of the money and power, for sure. So, it is a matter of what price you are willing to pay to get something positive done. I am going to make the assumption that if all the readers of this blog site got together in one place and really worked on solutions to the problem that we might come up with something that was viable. If there are simply no acceptable solutions to the current situation, what changes would we want to make to the current structure after the collapse in an attempt to not have this situation happen again in the future? And, perhaps of more immediate concern, if the population die off is imminent, a bunch of us have a low probability of survival. How can that survival probability be raised and what are we going to do with that survival?
I am going to make another assumption. Most of the readers and contributors to this site would like to leave a legacy of something more than bare bones survival and a history of just bitching and complaining. It would sure seem to me that we should begin to address these issues in detail.
Let's make another assumption; that we are going to get through the next elections this year. Should the elections be ignored? Vote for the lesser of evils? Maybe vote for alternative party, namely the Libertarian as an example, in the hopes of making a temporary fix? If we assume that we aren't going to get through or even to the next elections, then this is a mute point.
Obviously, almost any idea concerning immediate and radical change, or anything that smacks of forceful change over the internet is going to be very dangerous to the person suggesting the change. We are living in times where the technology makes this so. In a nutshell, this government has us by the shorthairs. Until we have nothing left to lose, we have limited options if we want to avoid becoming martyrs.
Murph
posted by cyclone @ 2:29 AM
41 comments
41 Comments:
Murph
That was very nicely said. I think we do need to start talking about solutions and instead of just bitching. The elites could make things very difficult for us if we get to a point of real solutions if only temporary.
The honorable Ron Paul in my opinion is one very brilliant individual. I have been reading allot about what he views as far as injustices in this country. He usually has ideas about what needs to change at the end of his speeches. He is one of very few that points these things out without fear. If we could only clone this guy.
I don’t think after saying what I just said that I am a libertarian. I would vote for anyone that will actually do what he or she says they will do with the interest of this country at heart. It’s no wonder that with the ever-weakening dollar corporate America has over time escaped to other boarders to increase profits. But this doesn't do much for us and further weakens this country. If the middle class makes less money and is taxed further how can we keep decent from being a big part of how we think and especially about the people in control?
So we talk about change as Murph referred. Its hard to invasion we can actually make a change, one because of how decisions are made currently and two the money it takes to actually make a changes. The only way I see us making changes is getting very well organized. This would take a serious effort and probably entail a new party of which would be unwelcome by the two. Besides do we have time to do this? Or can we get people in that will actually represent us from the two existing parties.
It took us years to get to this point so I would assume it would take a while to get back to where we need to be.
Sean
I believe that it is worth noting that several states and regions are starting to lean toward usurping the federal governments authority, from New Orleans' threat to hold oil in the Gulf over Bushy's head to multistate Kyoto style agreements.
While these individual steps may not do anything to stop our progression toward a very uncomfortable situation they do leave a lesson to be learned. We can learn that local areas or regions can react much more quickly to the needs of those in their reach. We can also discover that the federal government does not have as much control as it would like us to believe.
We should carefully watch what is going on here, and apply it to our own ideals and our hopes of what should happen. Regionalization has been a longstanding issue in our country (some of us can look to the 1770's and 1840's for that one), and it is going to gain strength. These smaller pockets within the country are much more succeptible to the publics whim and should be the focus of any dissenters' efforts.
If the feds cannot reign in a group or region which is at least partially cooperative, then how can it control a population mass in dissent? The Feds are confused and broken, and their cash supply has already been given away to a group which could care less. These business execs don't care about civil strife. They can't think far enough into the future to see how it could be a problem for them.
While I appreciate your viewpoint, Murph, I think you underestimate the people's potential to voice their concerns. We have seen the rise of civil (and, unfortunately not so civil) dissent of the government by its citizens regularly throughout this country's history.
The American people have a long established pattern of ignoring the situation rising up around them until it affects them in a direct and obvious way and then they've blown their caps and marched into the fight. Call it a "militia mentality," if you will. I call it the american way.
We have not progressed very far from our colonial roots. This pattern is still here, and it would be a bad mistake to ignore the possibility of a large group of people's blind desire to become martyrs for a cause. The federal government knows this. It also knows that if you try to use Tianamin Square or Gestapo style tactics in this country you will go from a few dozen, or a few hundred, Martyrs to tens of thousands very quickly.
The dissenters are out there, and you can hear the boiling point approaching. What they need is a way to vent their anger constructively. They need direction.
If left to their own effects, these people are most likely going to attack big oil, the manufacturing moguls, and the insurance companies. We need to point them in the right direction, and we need to focus their efforts toward a more effective goal. We need to make sure it is a Boston Tea Party and not a Shay's rebellion.
A collapse is on the way. The only real question is what parts of our system will fall, and what direction will be left to rebuild toward. That, my friend, is what we should be looking at.
Reality
Anonymous Sean,
Thanks for you comments.
This morning I just went through the Libertarian platform for Oregon. I find it a very interesting document for it is far more in tune with my view about how government should be run than any other platform I have seen. I have questions about parts of it, and I disagree with some parts of it. It does take a lot of control away from the money elite, and it does advocate a huge reduction in the size and expenditure of government. At least it would be a step forward in my opinion, and a considerable improvement over the two party system/platforms we currently have. I most emphatically do not endorse it in it's entirety. The link to this document is:
http://www.lporegon.org/2005Platform.pdf
In your comments, you expressed "I would vote for anyone that will actually do what he or she says they will do with the interest of this country at heart." Of course, there is going to be a lot of disagreement concerning what is the interests of the country, depending on the individuals personal interests.
If our projections for impending collapse of our government and society, accompanied by a huge die off comes true, we will out of necessity have a much smaller government if any at all for a while. Many of the problems we have today are brought on by a large and complex population. That may change dramatically. Many of the points contained in the Libertarian platform would serve well for a much smaller society. I think worth considering anyway.
Reality,
Excellent comments also. Please be assured that I do not underestimate the force of the general population once it becomes motivated to "blow their caps". My concern that they may indeed wait until the situation becomes so critical that there may be little to salvage and the perpetuation of chaos. No matter how we view this, I figure "the times they are a changin'".
Thanks again for the comment.
This morning there seems to be some unique and new information I am coming across on the internet. I came across this article 'Fromthewilderness' and went to the original post. This has some suggestions for how to deal with the coming crash. Excellent read.
http://ranprieur.com/essays/saveearth.html
Has any of the readers of this blog site come onto more information like this? Kinda worrisome.
article | posted February 1, 2006 (web only)
The End of the Internet?
Jeff Chester
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.
Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.
Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
I forgot to add, this is part of an analysis The complete article is found at;
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
I've seen the will of the people in action many times. I've seen it bring an end to Jim Crow and the Vietnam War. I've seen it turn idiots out of office and unfortunatly put even bigger idiots in.
Some may say that there is no way a third party can be elected. These people need to read their history! We don't have the Whigs, or Federalists, or Know Nothings any more. (Even though the current administration would qualify for the Know Nothings if not for idiolgy, at least for the name!) Sooner or later the people get sick and tired when neither party seems not to represent their views and kick the whole mess out, repacing it with the closest thing that does. This happened when Lincoln's Republican Party pretty much handed the Whigs their asses on a platter!
I was raised on politics. My family watched the news every night and discussed and debated the topics of the day. I can't remember when I've seen the American people more pissed off at an administration as now! I think both parties have a rude awakening coming! And it couldn't come soon enough!
Stoney,
I like your comments. Yes, if enough people get motivated for whatever reason, a third party could gain traction. This I think I have mentioned before, social inertia, makes significant changes quickly nearly impossible, and usually only when the crisis is upon them. Keep in mind also that the media is controlled by vested interests. You also might notice that at this point, the only real dissention I see or read is on the internet. If that is limited or made expensive or even eliminated, communication with other dissenters will be nearly impossible.
Boy does it appear that a substantial amount of people are pissed off over what is happening. Whether they understand the complete ramification of it all is open to question. My fear is that we will essentially keep the present structure and throw the rascals out and replace them with more of the same. It has happened often in our history, and meanwhile the elite just keep gaining more and more control.
Hey, just read TWO articles about Halliburton getting another contract, a $385 million contract -to build detention centers in the US.
Yep. Found the january 24, 2006 press release on Halliburton's website stating that they DID get the contract to build detention centers in the US -for imigration emergencies. Detention centers for imigration emergencies? Yeah, right.
Well, I had best stay away from this sight and anything eles that Gonzales might consider "aiding the enemy." Ya'll take care now -
I have read that the physical internment facility planned for and to be located on US soil, is intended to accommodate 21,000,000 people. No one outside the lunatics in charge would know for sure, but when the extent of this madness is learned it could turn out to be astonishing. I personally think that number is not out of the realm of possibility as it may relate to bushco plans.
A point about an uprising: it pertains to the ability of the public to thwart the insane drive for "total control" by bushco--food is an item that can and will be confiscated. This is to be found in the many point plan under Martial Law. A starving population would be very hard pressed to mount a major resistance. Food stockpiling, I would bet, will be disallowed from the get go and who knows where that may all end.
I've said it before and believe it to be still the case--the only hope the US has is that the Military and others will not fire on ordinary US citizenry when ordered to do so!
Murph
What you say makes a lot of sense.
Rep Ron Paul makes sense to me also, but that is because if you go far enough to the right you meet the left - and that is were I live.
The american way is to wait to long, the people will not rise up in time.
I would like to see our country and our way of life survive - But I think it is far more important that mankind survives - That will only happen with depopulation, and I wish there was a humane way for that to happen - I guess I am probably older than most of you and I do not feel threatened.
I do not agree that our system will collapse this year - Think Bush and his party will survive another election - Then some time after the next round of gas prices and Hurricanes the world will believe in the twin threats of Global warming and peak oil i then all hell breaks loose.
Sorry Reality thats what I Think.
"Lilac" - aka Reality "Sr"
Anonymous Lilac,
I find it interesting that you want to preserve our American Way Of Life. I would like for you to elaborate a bit on what that means. For instance, does that mean a preservation of the corporate structure that uses manipulation and focusing of wealth into as few hands as possible? Does it mean the society of consumerism and debt we currently have?
I would also be curious as to the reasoning for the statement of wanting to see humanity survive.
As for age, you didn't mention yours. I'm over 65. There is a way for population reduction outside of flat out killing or starving people, or letting them freeze to death. Of course you are treading on very contraversial ground even mentioning it.
I think that the signals are not all in concerning the time line for collapse. Generally, most societies take time to go down. It was estimated that the collapse of the Roman Empire took considerable time with about 50% die off. There are a few examples of very fast collapses, but not many. Some opinions are that we are in the collapse and have been for a bit of time. Keep your options open.
Good comments and thanks for the contrabutions.
Murph
I am 66
I am a Socialist ( to bad there is no American Socialist Party)
Can see any difference between Concerned Republican and Libertarian Democrat - they both scare me.
The Roman Empire was so large that it could take a year to get communications to and from the frontier - it did take a long time to fall. Of course they did not have B-2s and nuclear weapons.
I am afraid that when the NeoCon's decide they have to fight to get the oil they think they own - we have trouble.
You are old enough to remember when we discused these arguments in the early 70's the people decided to stick their heads in the sand and do nothing. I guess we did not the message across then. I wish all of you good luck this time.
I really would like to be more optomistic. A pessimist is an experienced optomist.
"Lilac"
Cyclone
I need a spell checker in this comment section.
I can not understand my own posts.
Lilac
Anonymous Lilac,
Yeh, I remember the 70's quite vividly. I got out of the service in 1970. I certainly had a good time for those 10 years. Then the 80's slapped me up alongside the head. sigh. The 60's and 70's movements were mostly composed of younger people. Disorganized for the most part, did not understand what the really big issues were. We lost big time, and what we lost was a shame. You might enjoy the movie "Flash Back". It really does show what was lost.
I have been having trouble with spelling and grammer also. Way around it. Type your post in a word processor, do your spell check, then paste it into the comment section.
I have another definition of a pessimist, comes from Robert Heinlein. "An optimist has much more fun in life but a pessimist is more often right".
I am not sure what scares you about either the Libertarians or the Democrats. The Dems and Repugs both scare me for sure. Mostly for their support of dominance of the corporations in government, but other issues also.
Yes indeed we have a different situation now, although human emotions haven't changed as far as I can determine.
I used to advocate more of a socialists position, years ago. The problem with those folks is they have no more means to stop manipulation,incompetance and corruption than any other governmental system. Any pure governmental system looks good until the greedy and power brokers get in the act. What I am concerned with is how to set up a social organization that can stop it. I lean toward Anarchy.
Thanks for your comments.
Murph,
Unfortunately, it would follow pattern for us Americans as a group to wait until the situation was catastrophic to act. I think for Peak Oil our chances passed somewhere in the early ninety's, if not ten years earlier. It would be almost impossible to find an effective energy replacement AND implement it before collapse. As far as our current governments actions, we could easily apply a TRUE constitutional test to our laws and fix the problem very quickly. Unfortunately, that would require that a majority in government would actually want to do that, and this is not the way to stay in office; I don't think it is a possiblilty. Dissent is coming, and coming thirty five years too late.
Lilac,
Iran and our friend in the south (Chavez)are the key to when everything falls. If this administration is really foolish enough to try something against either of these two, it will spell a certain and quick demise to our country. It is truly a shame, but we must at this point assume collapse is a given and plan for recovery. Suffering is certain, extinction of the American Ideal is not, yet...
Both,
Socialism is not necessarily the best answer as a pure system, but our system is built on a balance of power. The best balance to a Capitalist right is a Socialist left to keep it in check. Libertarian Democrats (read, Republican) are not an answer to Compassioante Conservatives (read, right leaning Republican). We need a strong shift back to where we where sixty years ago; center. We are currently tetering on Totalitarian Fascist.
When our current system was founded, a woman asked Franklin what type of Government they had given her. He answered "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it." We are about to see if we can. Let's hope that it is still possible to save it, it may be too late.
Cheers,
Reality
Reality,
I want to comment on your last post.
I realize that our government was originally intended to have some checks and balances, supposedly to avoid the excesses of the European rulers totalitarianism. However, I think it is also obvious that it has failed to provide those checks and balances. Keep in mind, what we are experiencing is the result of policies begun by Lincoln, escalated by Reagon and culminating in the present Bush administration. When we eliminated the federation of states and went to a centralized federal control of the states based on the the control by industry, we started down the slippery slope. No amount of patch work changes will alter that. You cannot stop a push to Fascism without changing the basic structure. In actuality, it is nonsense (even though I do it) to refer to left or right politics. Too ambiguous. If you want traction concerning the role of government in human society, let's begin by defining what you expect a government to do. It is far easier to talk about what you don't want the government to do, or be responsible for. And this is where the debate should begin. I am entirely unsure that most people who want to return to our constitutional principles really know what that would mean in society. And even if we did return to it, what would be in place to not end up in the same place we are now, or worse.
There are some excellent essays by an excellent writer that I would recommend if you haven't already become acquainted with him, Ran Prieur. This is the address of his home site http://www.ranprieur.com/ Got to the essays or his zines. I would recommend his stuff to anyone interested in the crash, what to do about it and commentaries on contempory society, and what he thinks we should do. I find him fasinating and fresh in his perceptions. I also think he has a really good handle on what this is all about.
Murph,
Interesting link. Had not seen that one, but will read it thoroughly.
I agree with you copmpletely. In order to return to our original "format" (of the people, by the people, for the people) we need only one thing, an informed and active public, and a balance between State and National Sovereignty. The problem I have is that I don't believe that an informed public is possible. We may by some miracle have the public wake up and take interest for a brief period, but I fear that it would not last if it occured at all.
When I mention a true "Constitutional Test" I am refering to the original text balance and review, not a Scalia type Original Intent approach. Yet again a plausible solution, but I don't hold out much hope.
I am not one to go down without fighting, but I do not hold out much hope for the future of our original way of life returning. I tend to believe we will see the Mingo County Coal Operators model for the future.
The true pessimist in the family,
Reality
Reality,
Ok, you stated in your last post that what the original system depended on was an informed and active public and you don't think that is possible. Even before Lincoln, how many people were really informed about the manipulation of the government? I would assert that it will always be just a few. If a fair and equitable government is dependent upon this, then it is an irreparible flaw.
Every historical document is subject to what is loosly called 'interpretation' to answer questions of 'what does it mean?' Look at the vast amount of difference of opinion and divisions with religious documents. I find it interesting to ask the question; Can we ever know the original meaning when we get far enough removed from the original draft? And, if we can, why would we need a group of men to tell us that meaning? Happened at the council of Nicea (spelling?) and now with the supreme court.
My studies indicate that we can never return to what was, ever. All movements that attempt to do so fail because the external conditions are never the same. I also conclude from study that the ideolized time was seldom as conceived.
Rockpicker,
Sent him an email yesterday. Haven't heard anything back as of yet.
I hope the running dog lackeys of the Big Pharma-Medical Complex didn't question him under anisthethesia or we're all fucked!!!
Stoney, I haven't heard from him either. His recovery may be a bit more of a hassle than he anticipated.
Murph,
Excellent point. I believe that although we have tried at times to head that direction, the "American Ideal" has never been realized and that moving toward it would be a step forward and not a step back. The civil war was, unfortunately, a victory for Federalization and Corporatism (as Mussalini [spell?] originally called Fascism). Any laws passed to further this goal would not hold up to equal liberties expressions and balances in the Constitution. Removing these laws would most likely collapse the existing system. Seeing as how it appears it is about to collapse anyway, now would be a good time for "review."
With regard to interpreting the intent of law, I think that is our problem. We should not interpret any law (especially the Constitution) for intent, but for content. The framers went to great lengths to select the exact wording which they used in their documents. The best evidence of this is found in the drafts of the Declaration of Independence.
When you look at religion, you are reading a final text. God does not refine and update his work in any sect or religion (although some in the past have done it for him). They are all completed texts. This unfortunately leaves room for interpretation. That is the very reason the framers did not want it included in any law. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a "living document" designed to be interpreted by its exact wording, and to be revised as needed. This can be best noted by the Slavery clause in the text. The document itself was not considered the best solution, but a step in the right direction.
Politicians who try to justify working around the law by quoting original intent are acting as dictators do. Totalitarian regimes always try to show some type of divine or inherent right to power (like God telling them to be president). Law is only valid when it serves justice and equality. Law is only valid because the people believe it is, because concensus agrees.
Religion is open to interpretation
and understanding. It is a dictation from a higher source. Law is only good when it serves it's purpose, our purpose. If the law needs to be interpreted by intent, then it is a bad law and needs to be removed or re-written. Law is never a directive to humanity, but a servent to it. This is the "Constitutional Test" Unfortunately, we always seem to forget that.
As always, I appreciate your commentary, and discussing its content. I definately look forward to learning more from your work.
Reality
Reality,
Now I think we are getting down to some basics. Quote from you: "Law is only good when it serves it's purpose, our purpose. If the law needs to be interpreted by intent, then it is a bad law and needs to be removed or re-written". Now I think you are going to have to define just 'who' you are talking about and whose purposes. That I see as a major problem. If you wish to be rather inclusive and talk about a consensus, then the minorty can be imposed upon, which obviously has happened in the past and up to today. If you become specific, then you also have a system that becomes so cumbersome that nobody understands it and has so many inherrant contradictions that it becomes arbitrary in it's use. You simply cannot define all of human actions as either good or bad. Which our system has attempted to do with some very horrible consequences. Another point, who gets to decide if a law does indeed serve it's purpose or not? The supreme court? That obviously does not work either? It has fairly consistantly over it's history ruled in favor of coorporitism, limited social freedoms, with a few exception of course, but over time, that is it's pattern.
I am back to my original theme. Our government was crafted primairly by elites, primairly for the benifit of elites. To have an equitable society, control must be removed from money and influence. How do you propose to accomplish this?
Everybody,
Cyclone just sent me an email and has heroicly burst free from the evil Pharma-Medical Establishment and their running dog lackeys! (That's some Communist soundin' shit there!) Unfortunatley just sending me an email got him back to bleeding again.
He sends his love and hopes he can get back to the keyboard tomorrow.
Later guys!
Stoney13
Murph/Reality:
The 2 of you work very well together--seems to me. Hopefully by brainstorming this dilemma as you gentlemen have set out to do, some gains toward a solution may be hammered out! And Murph the statement/question you made "To have an equitable society, control must be removed from money and influence. How do you propose to accomplish this?" puts you in very good company, indeed. Observe the following statement:
"The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues -- not faction, but rather distraction -- there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil . . . Now the legislator should determine what is to be the limit of poverty or of wealth.": Plato (427-347 B.C.):
So it an age old deli ma!
Murph--you lean toward individualism/libertarianism more than socialism (correct me if I am wrong) seems to me, at least in relation to governing bodies, but it seems to me that as is the case with almost all things in life roughly middle ground seems to have the best result--overall. I.e. Norway and Finland appear to be functioning reasonably well in terms of a generally good condition for a majority of the citizenry whereas countries in the extreme like the US where an opposite sort of system is taking over, resulting in more and more extremes for the human condition of US citizens. Here's another relevant statement which addresses this issue.
"A State divided into a small number of rich and a large number of poor will always develop a government manipulated by the rich to protect the amenities represented by their property.": Harold Laski (1930):
And lastly I think the following statement sums up much of the thrust of bushco and or "The Military Industrial Complex"
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. “In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. “The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war… and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” : James Madison, April 20, 1795
I don't have an answer to the question you posed. But if it is not talked about, it is a certainty that no solution will emerge--automatically-- so I submit my 2cents worth.
Stoney,
Glad to hear that Cyclone is coming along!!!
Murph,
That is the question which has been debated for ages. The society as a whole decides the right or wrong of law, for better or for worse. We have seen changes, good and bad, throughout the ages along this path. From The Chaco to the Romans to Nazis and Nationalists, Federalists and Fascists we have seen good and bad laws and policies (Hussein had excellent education and medical systems in his country fourteen years ago). One constant is how systems and societies evolve.
Consenses is made by the majority in a peaceful system, or collective strength in another. In most new democracies, the majority sees that it must serve the rights of the minority to maintain peace. Unfortunately, the enterprisers are needed for trade, so the elite are given a stipend that is often larger than others. This almost always broadens over time.
People as a whole seem to want more than anything else to pretend that everything is OK and ignore the problems which don't appear to affect them directly. A burgeoning people tend to work for a balanced and independent system. A desperate people will follow the person who tells them that everything is OK. Walt Thorough likes to point out that people like to follow the dreamers. I like to highlight the majorities lack of initiative in finding the truth for themselves. In past ages we went to the church or the theater for our information. Now the majority in this age simply grab some Ho Hos and turn on FOX or CNN. Americans tend to prefer their views sugar coated and handed to them on a pretty platter. We specialize in the "Rose Colored Glasses" view of our lives, and it has bit us in the ass many times before.
The length of the cycle varies. It took hundreds of years for the Chaco to cycle out of existence, but the French for a period seemed to make beheading rulers a weekend passtime. It seems to average somewhere around 250 Years. Seems to point back to the basic Human Condition. Makes you reflect on the age of our system and our current condition.
How do you fix the system. You change the Human Psychosis, or you overthrow the entrenched when they piss you off and start the cycle again. Which will we follow? I'm afraid the world has not yet found a way out of the trench, and I am not sure that we will.
If you want to see the Mankind's system of democracy in pure form, watch a video on how Wolves establish and maintain rank in a pack, and how far they will go to follow the leader. It is disturbingly similar to humans. This is not a new problem at all, just a different face.
You raise questions in your last comment over who decides law, and when it becomes so cumbersome that it is useless to all but the elite?
The symptoms which you describe sound an awful lot like what we have in this country now. But they also sound like colonial law in 1750, and feudal law at about the time the Magna Carta was written by the nobles (they missed their intended solution with that one I think). It also describes Athens and Rome right before their fall.
I am afraid that our answer will be to stay ignorant to the path of history and begin the same cycle again shortly. To remove the influence of power (money is a tool to an ends) you must remove Greed from every person. It is not a fight in which the odds are in our favor. A man knows it is good to feed the poeple, a man almost always knows that a balanced and fair society benifits him most, but a man must overcome the fact that power corrupts. A fair system defends all, but there will always be someone who wants to tilt the rules to his favor.
That brings me back to my original response. The masses will not handle the effects of an invasion of Iran or of peak oil very well. They are likely to start to beat the war drums without a plan for what to do after they start to march. We may be best served by not discussing how to avert an almost certain crises but, as the few who are looking honestly at an unattractive future, planning on how to point the masses away from blind revenge and toward constructive change.
The Chaco Empires history is the one which rings out in our situation. I think their falls will match our own. No military defeat to fall. No severe internal strife. Diplomacy failed when the environment no longer made their treaties beneficial to all parties. David Stuart's book Anasazi America does a good job of comparing their problems to our own. I think his work is the best general outlook on this problem. I fear he is VERY close to the mark.
If this is our future, I believe that we are best served by taking for granted the collapse and focusing on what the Chaco Societies survivors, the Pueblo, have done to survive where others have not.
Reality
Reality and Anonymous,
Very thoughtful posts. I have read them carefully.
A bit about how I view my own thinking. I seem to be much better at synthesizing and correlating others thoughts and ideas than coming up with original stuff myself. On occasion I think I have come up with insights that possibly have value. When I have knowledge sufficient in a particular area, I can debate my ass off.
So, recognizing all that you both posted, we are back to the question of how humans organize themselves into some kind of system that makes sense. At various times I have played with lots of alternatives, which in the end were no better or worse than my present concerns.
Currently, I have found a writer with ideas that I can very much identify with. Ran Prieur. Personally, what he has to say resonates with me. I have spent considerable time going through his essays on modern civilization and in my own indomitable style, trying to pick it apart. His basic thesis I do agree with totally. Our problem is centered in what we call civilization which has been around for a relatively short period of time when we look at the total span of human life. In all cases, as Reality pointed out, from earliest recorded history, and hints from archeology for times not recorded, as man formed complex societies, it was a matter of the few controlling the many. With no exception that I could come up with, it was wealth that did the controlling. Now Ran has his solutions to this that I rather suspect is the only way out of these cycles. Because I think that humans as a species can perhaps come up with multiple solutions is why I ask the questions that I do, seeking that germ of an idea that will bring us more in line with harmony with nature. Our out of harmony with nature could prove to be the eventual extermination of humans, and it is contributing to many of our miseries today.
So, to understand my present line of thought, read what this guy has to say. It is extensive, and sometimes tongue in cheek, but I think he is right on.
rockpicker,
mice. Like it.
Whoa, Guys! Jeez. I go to work and come back and I've got this huge discourse to catch up on...and a poem that gives me goosebumps. Great stuff.
I thought I was at least somewhat aware of history, but the "Chaco Societies?" Please back up a little, Reality. Who were they?
Personally, I don't think we can codify a benign society. People who are mean-spirited greedheads can sabotage any system - capitalist, communist, socialist, tribal, whatever. You write it down and they can f--k it up.
Conversely, if you have a decent society, they can at least make do nomatter what their government is. Example: the Italians. They watch their governments come and go and still do pretty much what they want to, as long as they can keep their naps, good food, wine and cappicinos.
Maybe we should take a hint from them and just ignore the government as much as we can. Create an alternative reality. Have so much fun and be so outrageous that it attracts the fun-loving and smart first, and then everyone else.
Sing and dance and laugh and share and thumb our noses at those blowholes who would savage the earth and kill the innocent.
I think a really revolutionary thing would be to learn to be happy and extend my happiness to people for free. If people who felt happy and free were to form a government, I bet it would be a good one, whatever they came up with.
The Chacoan Society was an early ( Pre - Columbus ) society in America in roughly the four corners area of New Mexico.
Their society was able to build a very succesful trading empire and formed an elite whose only function was to collect and live on taxation. And of course to provide religion to the masses. IT worked very well for hundreds of years. Till Mother Nature stepped in with a 100 year drought.
They fell and the Pueblo Model survived. They learned to live with nature. The Pueblo may be the people who are best prepared (even today) to survive the next challenge from Mother Nature.
Of course "Reality" will not approve of my short synopsis.
Lilac - aka Reality Senior
Humm...fascinating. Thanks, Lilac
Lilac,
I also didn't connect with the word Chaco, so I did a quick review, and I remembered that I had seen a documentary on them some time ago. Age wise,they weren't that old. Disapeard around 1200 or so.
I find it interesting that a lot of the popular writings concerning fairly large groups that up and disappearing as the Chaco did, leaving no written accounts, have such positive statements concerning how they lived and how they went away. Makes interesting stories and reading but most of it is pure speculation.
Freeacre,
That Italian way of life didn't do much to help them in WWII, but good point.
Lilac nad Murph,
Good basic description, but it misses the bigger point. The Chaco had a longstanding empire. They, like the American colonists built their empire on trading goods; namely their pottery. They then expanded over several years to become a trade hub of their world, and began to sepcialize in that. They no longer worked as hunter-gatherers, nor as producers. They developed the first known complete service based economy. Their only product was trade itself. Their religion comes to play, but quite likely the great houses used the trade economy to find new members (similar to the Roman temples.
They also are a perfect example of what happens when the basis of their society- corn for them and oil for us- collapses. An Empire (peaceful trade Empire) which had been developing for ages fell in a decade. Not from war, not from internal strife, but from starvation.
They were so busy being the empire that they did not notice that they no longer produced anything for themsleves, including the food they ate. When the drought hit the region the other tribes did not have as much to trade, and the Chacoans only source of food, cloth, pottery, or any necessary good was tariff from negotiating trade between the other groups. Ergo collapse, starvation, depopulation, and rebirth as a new society.
Peak oil and global warming combine to create the same situation here, possibly quite soon. We are best served by considering what we can produce here if there is not enough oil to economically ship everything we need from overseas.
Can we do as well as the pueblo? They only lost 90% of their population and starved for one hundred years, but they knew how to grow, hunt, and knit. do you?
Reality
Reality,
Yup, know how to hunt and grow food but I'm not much of a weaver or kniter and I don't know much of anything about making pottery. Plus, there comes a point in age where the stamina simply is not there.
By the way, I am curious. All the conclusions concerning the Chaco that you talked about. How was that information arrived at? What I remember about that empire is that they had no written language. Am I remembering wrong? How are these conclusions arrived at? I have read enough and seen enough documentary stuff about archeology digs and most of what they say about the society they are digging up is pure speculation. Interesting stories but can't be taken as fact because personal accounts simply aren't there. I am not saying that the story about the Chaco is wrong. For instance, during the Roman or even the Greek era, we have written accounts by observers concerning what was going on. So with that we can put together a story that
probably has validity. I was somewhat amused about a supposed documentary on TV about the neolithic societies, as supported by the digs, and presenting this story as a fact. Bad science. Good story.
This story about the Chaco has supposedly happened over and over. Deplete the recources enough and you have to move on or die. But resource depletion is not the only thing that will wipe out societies. Applying what we think we know about these societies to our own works well enough but I think logical thinking would draw the same conclusions.
Murph,
You make a good point, but Chaco history is not speculation.
We know much more about the "Anasazi" than other Western Empires of the period; mostly because a huge amount of evidence regarding their way of life was quite well preserved in the desert. I have gone to many of their sites, as you can yourself. They are scattered all over the four points section, but are concentrated heavily around the continental divide. It is an amazing experience, and a lesson well learned!
The climate has helped us out with the preservation of their houses, temples, and even their bodies. They left a surprising amount of evidence about their way of life simply because of where and how they lived.
There are some holes in the understanding of their religious beliefs because the great houses were put in conspicuous locations which are severely beaten by the elements, but their personal and productive lives are well preserved because their houses and their stores were underground.
We do not know specifically what the purpose of the great houses and desert arts were, although we do know that they had religious significance, and were the center of their religious and social lives. We do not know for certain whether the religion increased trade or the trade increased religious following, but we know that no significant facets of their religion travelled to their trade partners in spite of ample evidence that their product- and later outsourced techniques- did. We know much more about them than any of the other tribes from any comparable period worldwide. We do not have diaries so we do not know the motivation behind their actions. We do know the day to day actions and their effects. There are many legends which go into detail about their lives, but they are quoted by tribes from the surrounding areas which did not live there during their time. I discount these stories completely.
One serious problem is the period from about two hundred to six hundred years after the Empires fall. They seemed to have returned to hunter-gatherer methods, but there is not a lot of solid evidence.
After the missing break we have ample evidence as they had emerged as the Pueblo, and have not changed much since then. These peoples are said to have records of the era, and archeaologists and historians have been trying to see them for years. The Pueblo do not cooperate with that effort at all.
The previously mentioned book explains my comments much better than I could in a limited discussion, and cites dozens of other excellent works which follow up on the various details.
I am often tempted to mention another American Trade Empire, the Adena/Hopewell. Their system is even more amazing, and what we know about them and their capabilities is amazing. I reserve its use for the very reason you state, too much speculation. I do not quote speculation as fact; I am fortunate that with regard to the Chaco I don't have to.
Reality
Reality,
Thanks for the expanded post on the Chaco.
My parents were big followers of the Pueblo and formed some loose relationships with some of them. They were also very interested in what they could learn about the vanished societies.
Perhaps one of these days I will bone up on the latest stuff concerning these societies.
Murph,
I guess we both have boning up to do. I'm still trying to catch up on Prieur. It's a constant process of learning and revision. Maybe together we can find something new.
Our comments help each other, and spur outside comments which do the same.
Some of the North african tribes (particularly the quanzan groups) hold a particular philosophy of learning, koindu, in high regard. Meaning to teach, to learn, to share; it is a staple belief in their lives. Everyone from parents to children, from Holy Men to warriors have something to do in each category, for each person they meet. Maybe we could all learn from them.
To learning,
Reality
Reality,
I find catching up on Ran Prieur difficult. Too much to absorb quickly. I do like his style though. His world view, as I understand it, I think is entirely correct. It may very well be that his view is the only way we can avoid the rise and fall of societies, perhaps extinction of human life. In my view, continuing societies as has been done is simply an indication of a form of insanity. As I have stated before, you can not do the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes each time. I suppose it can be argued that humans are hard wired that way. That of course assumes a mechanistic view of human behavior. Maybe Karma is true. Sigh. Just hope these jerks in current office come back as pond slime.
Murph,
I think they were pond slime in their last life. A few of them are now...
I agree with you completely that something else is needed. We have repeated the same thing over and over with countless minor variations throughout history. I would have to assume that if we can come as far as we have with all of our other knowledge, somebody should be able to do something for good old common sense.
I don't hold much hope, but I am trying anyway. Sort of wonder if, instead of consulting historians and politics for our public platforms, we shouldn't bring in a few psychologists to help get the right public direction. Maybe that would make a difference. Of course their wonderful opinion could also to medicate the whole world with prozac...
Still catching up on Ran Prieur; head still spinning... He's a hard one to read at times.
Dosing up... :-)
Reality
Reality,
Here is an interesting site you might want to take a look at. More detailed info on collapsing civilizations.
http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/index.html
Post a Comment
<< Home