I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence “democracy”, and the other, “tyranny”. – Karl Popper
The casual reader can be forgiven for arriving at the erroneous conclusion that I become dreadfully morbid in autumn. It starts subtly with my meditation on the dying year every autumnal equinox, increases through October with a number of horror-themed columns, reaches a peak on All Hallows Day, then descends into blood and fire four days later when, on Guy Fawkes Day, I always “call for a rededication of the holiday from a time to burn rebels in effigy to a time to burn tyrants in effigy instead”:
Governments need to be reminded (at least annually if not constantly) that they only hold power by the sufferance of all the people, not merely the majority, and that the overthrow of any government by a disgruntled minority is always a possibility. I would like to see most if not all politicians and their minions paying for their power and privilege by being forced to live in a constant state of nervous anxiety; maybe then fewer would choose that path and more would concern themselves with keeping all the citizenry happy rather than merely pleasing barely enough of the population to keep themselves in office.
But those who think of all this as morbid are those who narrowly see death as the end of all that is good; I embrace a more pagan view which recognizes that all things must end, that life depends upon the deaths of other organisms, and that old, decaying things must be cleared away – sometimes forcibly – in order to make way for new, younger and often better things. Old people must pass on to make room for new children; dilapidated buildings must be demolished to pave the way for new construction. And old, moribund governments which serve only the entrenched and wealthy must be removed if we are to build new ones which better serve all of the people and protect minorities from oppression by both majorities and other, more privileged minorities.
When one organism consumes another, the components of the devoured (proteins, fats, carbohydrates, etc) become part of the devourer; when an old building is torn down, sometimes a portion of it (such as the slab, hearth or even sections of walls) may become part of whatever is built on its site. And when a government is replaced, those elements of the old one which worked well are often retained in the new one (as English common law became the basis of American law). At other times, however, the old thing is of no use at all; inedible plants are plowed under to ready a field for farming, and dynamite and bulldozers remove a condemned building. And old governments…well, it’s certainly preferable to dismantle them peacefully, but those currently in power and those who profit by the status quo rarely allow that, and at such times more robust methods may become necessary.
Though some of us have been trying to call attention to the rot at the heart of the Western establishment for years now, we have largely been “voices crying out in the wilderness”; most people prefer to blame some bogeyman such as “capitalism”, “patriarchy” or “liberals”, or to pretend major issues are mere cosmetic blemishes on an otherwise-hale body politic, or even to deny that there are any problems at all. Meanwhile the rulers, rather than admitting the systemic problems, prefer to treat government as a colossal game of hot potato, eternally passing the ball forward in the hopes that it will be in someone else’s hands when the music at last stops as it inevitably must. But as the events of the last few years have amply demonstrated, the piper is growing steadily more exhausted, and will soon demand his due. Soon we will be forced to change the way we’ve done things for the past century, whether we like it or not, and the actions of the ruling class (especially that of the US and UK) over the past few decades bode ill for that change being a peaceful one. I think it’s safe to predict that there will be fireworks, and not of the pleasant kind. But though fire may be fearsome and horrible, it is part of the natural order of things, and supremely efficient for cleansing decay and purifying the site of a plague. And when the flames die down, as they always do, the ash left behind provides fertile soil for new (and gods willing, healthier) growth.
Coincidentally, Russell Brand was guest editor of the New Statesman recently; his theme was ‘revolution’, and he wrote a long and rather meandering editorial about this.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution
He was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on the BBC; now, Paxo is an acerbic interviewer, one who doesn’t take political prisoners. You can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGxFJ5nL9gg
BTW, I’m probably the only reader here who had/has no idea who Russell Brand is.
I will not be so cruel as to dispel your blessed ignorance.
I’ve done my best to have no idea who Russell Brand is but, alas, to no avail.
I have no idea who he is (along with Jeremy Paxman).
Fleet Street Fox has a modern-day take on Guy Fawkes; read the comments:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-would-make-guy-fawkes-1417972
I think today would be an appropriate date to post this. Great column, Maggie!
Every 5th November, I watch the movie V for Vendetta. I’ve my DVD player ready today.
The problem with our system today is the type of power it has concentrated.
There are two types of power: There is the power to- this is the good power, the power that enables a people to achieve great things, the power that gives individuals the ability to improve their lot. Giving power to the people is the driving idea behind democracy.
There’s also the reverse, which is power over. Power over is what a king or dictator claims. It’s the power to force others to do your bidding. It’s inherent in large scale capitalism.
Speaking of Capitalism, John Manyard Keynes said “Capitalism is the extraordinary idea that the worst of men, with the worst of motives, will work out best for all.”
Democracies cannot be built on a system of power over, and they can’t stay democracies for long when power over numbers of people is concentrated in a few hands.
While I may not be collecting pennies, roasting jacket potatoes in a bonfire tonight, as I did as a child, I will be keeping 5th November in my heart, with my own meaning, and hoping for a better future.
You keep harping on capitalism – as if giving all power to a socialist government means “giving” power back to the people. It does not. What you end up with – is a ruling class.
Witness the Soviet Union, Witness China, Witness Venuzuela and Cuba. There is no freedom for the individual – the government rules as a tyranny.
I mean – can you show me one socialist government that doesn’t restrict liberty?
The United States – for all it’s woes – is still the freeest nation on the planet.
And it’s built on capitalism and always has been. The problems we’re having now – are a result of playing with Socialism in the last 100 years.
It’s inevitable capitalism will destroy democracy.
That’s because an economy where money makes more money will increasingly concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer ever more powerful people until they have lost touch with the masses and have little reason to care about them.
See any places that look a bit like that already?
But it’s also inevitable socialism will destroy democracy.
A powerful centralised bureaucracy will always respond to crisis by accumulating ever more centralised power until you get the same unbridgeable gap between ruler and ruled as you do with the capitalist plutocrats. Just as Bakunin warned Marx in 1870 (that’s how us anarchists got ourselves tossed out of the First International despite being better communists than the Marxists).
That’s why, regardless of the system, you need to tear it down and start again at regular intervals.
Or you could try adopting permanent revolution.
Still got your copy of Mao’s Little Red Book, krulac?
I never had a copy of that book. Even when I was a socialist I was more of a supporter of the Kuomintang and I didn’t view the legacy of Sun Yat-sen to be “communistic” as, well the Chinese Communists apparently always have.
But I don’t think capitalism is the enemy IF you reduce the size and power of centralized government. Hell, I have not a problem with Sociaism either as long as it’s not imposed by an overbearing centralized government. The truth is – the Scott Highlanders practiced a lot of socialism – but this was enforced at the clan level where the chieftains lived with the people and could see, AND WERE EFFECTED BY, the policies they inacted.
You confuse communism with socialism. Many do. What I advocate isn’t at all giving ownership of the means of production to the government. What we have now is an unhealthy close relationship between capitalism and power.
What I advocate is a system that prevents too much power and ownership from accumulating in any one pair of hands. A system that forces diffusion of power. What capitalism creates is the concentration of economic, and usually political power in the hands of a few.
You claim that the United States is the freeest nation on the planet. On what basis? We have more people in prison than most. Choices of even how to use one’s body are restricted by law. (And thus the reason Maggies does this great blog).
Would you describe yourself as a “free market anti-capitalist,” in the formulation of Roderick Long? http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/07/libertarianism-means-worker-empowerment/
I read the link, but no, I would not describe myself that way. In the absence of governments, the rich become even more despotic. Look at feudalism, that’s an example.
I am in favor of free markets within socialism. An example: There are three worker owned cooperatives in your area producing soap. They compete, and you are free to buy from any of them, or make your own soap.
“Free markets” and “socialism” seems a contradiction in terms. In a free market, you can enter into any voluntary arrangement you want.
Consider your example. What if you wanted to start selling your own soap? And what if, after you started doing so, some people wanted to work for you in making soap but didn’t want responsibility for business arrangements — i.e., they wanted you to be the boss? If these wouldn’t be allowed, then we’re not talking about a free market. We’re not talking about a free society at all.
It’s the freeest nation on the planet because it still extracts less of it’s citizen’s assets than the European Socialist nations do. I paid $2.99 for gas yesterday – they haven’t seen that kind of a rate in Norway for a decade or more!!!
I can also obtain firearms … and the government does not know what firearms I possess (and I’m not required to tell them).
I can own any kind of car I want. I can drive a HumVee if I want and there is no punitive tax for me doing so like there is in many European nations who are running scared from the Global Warming hoax.
In fact – the European Socialists have all kinds of taxes on shit – like fatty foods and whatnot. That’s funny – because many of them take more than 40% of the money YOU earned … and they aren’t satisfied with that amount – and so start nickel and diming you on things like alcohol and junk food!!
Until recently – I had control of my own healthcare – and could buy a policy or not. European Socialists give one option – the government option. Here, you at least used to have an option to buy several different policies from different insurance agencies – to tailor them to your needs. Now – the government is supposed to be smarter than me – so I can’t make these decisions anymore. Isn’t this what your socialism does? I mean – how else would you do it? Certainly Socialism doesn’t leave up to the lowly individual to decide these things without, at least, some kinds of restrictions placed upon the individual does it?
It’s the freest nation because I get to keep more of my shit.
So for you, it’s all about the money.
The government can spy on us, lock people like Maggie and I up for using our bodies to earn money, imprison people for all other sorts of things, but as long as they don’t tax you, and let you buy whatever you can afford, then you’re free?
That’s a low definition of freedom.
How nice that you’ve had the option to buy healthcare. Many haven’t had that option. If I didn’t get health care through an employer, who has total control over which policies are available to me, I couldn’t afford one at all, as I have an on-going pre-existing condition.
When I lived in the UK, I had healthcare, as a citizen. I could have chosen to buy an additional policy, but never saw the need. And no, no one ever forced me to go to the doctor, or accept any particular treatment. There was a medicine that worked for me, for migraines. It wasn’t typically covered by the NHS. My doctor made the case for me that it was the one that worked, and they covered it.
Here. I can see the doctor the insurance covers, or pay on my own, if I can afford it. (Many Americans are poorly paid because it all goes to the capitalists on the top.) I can only have the treatments the insurance covers, again, unless I can afford to go outside the system. You can do that with single payer schemes too.
Governments are funded by tax. They always have been. It’s really the only way they can be. It has traditionally been the decision to fund items that are optional, and bad for you in the majority opinion, at a higher rate. That’s only good sense, not an attack on your freedom.
If counting snouts legitimates government penalizing victimless behaviors, then it’s hard to see how you have any leg to stand on in arguing against prostitution prohibition. Most Americans support it, even if many of them might be hypocrites in doing so.
Mind you, I don’t think counting snouts justifies anything. Regardless of what most Americans might think, penalizing prostitution is still wrong because it infringes on self-ownership. Where self-ownership and counting snouts conflict, then morally speaking, self-ownership must win,
Which is the idea behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which is why the SCOTUS struck down anti-miscegenation laws, and didn’t bother taking a poll first. Rights aren’t up to a vote.
Unfortunately, we Americans have gotten away from that somewhat. Then again, we’ve always been away from that somewhat, and so is the rest of the world. The issue is: are we getting closer or further from that ideal? And if further, what can be done about that?
Our thoughts are as one on this Maggie.
A lot of my Australian friends think we can fix the system here by becoming a republic or fiddling with the constitution but I reckon any ‘reform’ presided over by the dying ancien regime is doomed to fail.
Good constitutions are written by the Revolutionary Council while the smoke is still clearing and the previous government is dangling from nearby lampposts to help focus everyone’s mind.
“call for a rededication of the holiday from a time to burn rebels in effigy to a time to burn tyrants in effigy instead”:”
Nonsense. What is needed is a call for a rededication of the holiday from a time to burn rebels in effigy to a time to burn tyrants in reality instead.
BTW; I hope that many of the readers here have read the Graphic Novel V for Vendetta as well as watched the film. The original makes the nature of the government a good deal less straightforward cliche Fascist Right, which is in much better alignment with the historical British government excesses the writer had actually experienced. It makes for a more textured story.
I don’t subscribe to the notion of “revolution for revolution’s sake”.
There has to be a plan. This was the problem with “Occupy Wallstreet” – which never had a plan beyond sitting on things until they were thrown off them. In fact, the only redeeming quality I saw in OWS was it was VENGEFUL movement against the banks who caused, along with the U.S. government – the financial collapse. Let’s remember that the next time we criticize natural human motives such as “vengeance” … “punishment” … and “revenge”. Americans lost honor and face … and financial assets during the collapse and that should have resulted in vengeance against those who caused it. The only thing we got though – is OWS – which was ineffective and, the Tea Party – which most self-proclaimed “revolutionaries” in this nation – revile.
I also do not subscribe to the notion of sacrificing the good on the “altar of the perfect”.
There IS a revolution coming – but it will not result in anything perfect. If we’re not careful – we could well end up with something much worse – as this is the natural product of revolutions. The American Revolution is one of the few, you could say, that produced a positive product on the back-end. It was the French Revolution that produced Napoleon and, while he is one of my all-time heroes – he was also a tyrant … on a continental scale. In fact, the product of most revolutions must themselves undergo “counter revolution” in order to adjust for their shortfalls. This was in fact the case with the American Revolution – you could say the adoption of the Constitution was just such a “counter revolutionary” event – which was designed to correct the perceived shortfalls of the Articles of Confederation. There was a counter revolution in China too – somewhere along the line – probably beginning with Deng Xiaoping – since China no longer follows the revolutionary principles of Mao.
So it’s important to remember that revolutions produce, normally, an unsettling – clearly non-perfect – state that has to be corrected through either an abrupt counter-revolution or something more subtle. It’s the more “subtle” adjustments that produce the more desirable results. It took years of subtle adjustments to resolve the French Revolution into something that made sense and actually benefited the French people.
My point here – is that when the revolution comes – there will many who say … “Well, I’m not standing with those fellows because they are racists ” or … some other reason of “imperfection”. In a violent revolution there is no perfection and you need to be ready to deal with years of hardship and perhaps even more tyranny under a revolutionary government.
But – within all this – there still needs to be a plan.
Can someone tell me why most self-proclaimed “revolutionaries” despise Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee? These men are the real revolutionaries and they are producing things that OWS never could. The latter two almost single-handedly shut down this government – which, if you’re a revolutionary – why is that considered a bad thing? Why did the revolutionaries suddenly side with the statists against Paul, Cruz, and Lee? Why suddenly – was the federal government the “revolutionary’s” friend?
And these men have a plan – which is to severely curtail the power of the U.S. government.
Yet, “revolutionaries” spit on them because … well some of them are against comprehensive immigration reform … some are “pro-life” … blah, blah …
Who gives a fuck? They are for less government and this means more liberty for the people.
So – when the revolution comes – I doubt it will be a homogenous movement across the U.S. Likely you will see leftist revolts in the North and right wing revolts in the South. The leftist revolts, necessarily will call for an expansion of power in a socialist framework. It will be a vengeful movement with a goal of righting the “wrongs” caused by the wealthy class – and you can expect a lot of wealth redistribution when it happens and when that happens – there is no freedom. That’s not for me – that’s the wrong road.
The revolution in the South will be an independence movement and it will be right wing. And yeah – you can bet gay rights and abortion rights and all that will take a back seat. It won’t be perfect but, you can bet your ass that, if successful – they won’t put all power in the hands of a federal government again. Less centralized government = more freedom.
I’ll be with that.
Krulac, in all fairness to Napoleon I, the noble classes everywhere in Europe were determined to destroy him. True, his reputation is tarnished because he restored slavery in France’s colonies and regulated the press and education system to suit his propaganda aims, but overall I think he was a decent ruler. Under his rule, for example, he implemented legal reforms that, among other things, recognized property rights and due process, based government and military promotions on ability, and secured religious freedom and equality before the law. He also ordered the construction of a major road system and other public works projects, and his education reforms made basic education widely accessible.
Napoleon’s reputation is also tarnished because he is accused of being a tyrant for the destruction that resulted from the Napoleonic Wars. However, almost every war he fought was caused, directly or indirectly, by a series of coalitions that formed against France. Since Napoleon was a threat to noble privilege and what remained of the feudal system, and Britain was fighting to protect its commercial interests and the balance of power on the continent, a lasting peace was impossible.
That said, I don’t think Napoleon’s rule represented a counter-revolution, because the ancient regime was not restored, and his rule empowered the bourgeoisie and middle class. Although he eventually became a monarch, he created a political system that threatened the feudal order. Finally, Napoleon’s civil code survived after his death, and likely accelerated the collapse of what remained of the feudal order. Thus, I think we should see Napoleon’s rule as a continuation of the French Revolution. A better example of the counter-revolution, in my opinion, would be the short reign of Charles X.
So…
If you don’t want to join a revolution because “those guys are lefty,” that’s a reasonable decision based on noble principles. However, if I don’t want to join a revolution because “those guys are racists,” then I’m being terribly naive and totally unrealistic.
Thanks for making that clear.
“Less centralized government = more freedom.”
That’s exactly what I am saying, but since most of us spend a lot of our waking hours working, I’m adding “less centralized control of the means of making a living =more freedom.”
I would be happy to see the south go it’s own way, into a theocracy, if it chooses.
Just how do you make Socialism work without centralized control?
I don’t think you’e a socialist – at least not “old school” socialist.
If the US government eliminated SNAP, unemployment insurance, 90% of military spending, and all of Medicare, medicaid, Social Security, NASA, and yes Obamacare, but banned nutmeg and all alcoholic beverages containing more than 20% alcohol, with harsh penalties for dealing in or possessing same, we’d have a smaller government. Would we be more free?
And yeah, old Abe should’ve told the South, “Good luck, and don’t let the border hit you in the ass on the way out.”
Just hoping that the ash you refer to Maggie isn’t of the radioactive variety.
Maggie,
I only recently began following your blog. I respect your convictions & find that I follow your logic & appreciate your views, though of course I don’t always agree. I do however benefit from considering your views.
I’m curious, could you be more specific about the last section, specifically what you’ve been calling attention to & what events of the past few years you’re referring to? I’m more than glad to search through your writings if you’ll specify the subjects, or perhaps you can direct me to specific postings.
On an unrelated matter, I’d like to ask you a few specific questions I have about seeing an escort. I am a novice with escorts but after some education I am considering it. Do you have time for this sort of thing & how best do I submit questions to you?
Thank you, Dan in MD
The idea that more freedom = better world is kind of silly. Every law, either in a constitution or penal code, is enacted to restrict freedom. You do not have the freedom to squat on my property or seduce my minor children, something many people sorely wish the had the freedom to do. We have evolved over millennia a complex set of laws that set of standards for which freedoms we collectively decide to restrict.
Democracy and indeed the market optimize this process because they are especially collective. Our laws work best when they are complex and open to revision by a well defined legal process.
We need regulations and we need an active and respectful dialogue about the extent and nature of those regulations. It is this process of revision and faith in the collective legal process that makes the US special, not that we have “more freedom”. I’d argue that a failed state like Somalia offers it citizens much more freedom, the result being that some of them are free to become warlords. Both ends of our political spectrum hold up over-simplified ideologic ideals, like freedom, and then try to judge these complex issues based on that single value.
Whenever we live together, one person’s freedom may easily become another’s subjugation. What we need is balance.
OK now THAT was thoughtful!
Is the US more or less free than Portugal, where you don’t go to prison for drugs (or, for that matter, for hiring a hooker)? But what if you can’t have a gun? Or what if you can, but not a semi-automatic rifle? Then is Portugal more or less free than the US? What if the taxes are higher? What if they’re only a little bit higher, and you can have a semi-auto but you have to get a special license?
Obviously the answer will depend on which freedoms the person answering the question feels are important.