Democracy And Free Markets: Is That All?

The Role of Social Systems and Cultural Artifacts

Question; if we had such a minimal guarantee system, would there not be a large body of people who would adapt to it? In an alienated society it would be a great way to drop out and have time to write, make love, and enjoy the grass. Now, if there were a culture so attractive that people would want to participate.

Which leads me to a puzzle for me: Why are so many of the best jobs so highly paid? Isn't the very quality of the job reward enough?

In a world of fragmented social atoms with little community—democracy and markets—it is hard to find a socially meaningful role without giving in to the competitive job world with high consumption—because that is almost the only social and community life there is.

If we had the 'tribal system' and capitalism if you want more, but we only have the capitalist system and its extended bureaucracies. Nor do we take the time as a social priority to explore the inner world you so meaningfully describe in your personal item.

Why is it surprising that so many of the best jobs are also highly paid? Who gets them? the elites—and often not based upon ability but upon nepotism, connections, favors, money, social status, etc. And this isn't new or the result of democracy.

(Participant) I cannot agree with Kip more. The major difference between dictatorships and democracies is that in democracies new small systems are allowed to develop (through a process of self-selection and self-organization) and grow until an elite group emerges and dominates them. In non-democratic systems the elite becomes the dominant power and that is the end of the story for many years until they are overthrown by bloody wars or revolutions. Self-selection and self-organization in such societies are not allowed to take place. My focus has always been on the propensity of democracies to allow small businesses to grow. That is where the story is, and in fact that is where America excels. There is no doubt, however, that systems mature and become top-heavy, centralized and non-productive. But that is not why millions of immigrants come to the U. S. and set up shop in L. A. There are more successful Iranian businesses in L. A. than in Iran! There are more Iranian physicians practicing in New York than in Iran. Do you think we gravitated to the U. S. because we stood no chance of growth and development?

I go to work every day and say what I need to say to my class without the fear of ever being asked why I said what I said. I think we are underestimating the fact that this does not happen in too many universities in Asia and Africa, and perhaps in some countries in Europe too.

Certainly the compassion and tolerance path would take more - not less - creativity and initiative, talent and perspective. What if in fact this government just doesn't have the depth to do it? When I did some consulting at State in the 80's there was a study on the cultural problem of retirement - and the fact that the replacing candidates did not bring the depth of Atlantic understanding that had been typical of the outgoing generation. The report suggested that a competence gap was coming and tat it would affect the range of US diplomatic options.

If we look at the anti-war tsunami, it is thin in positive proposals. Not that such is definitive, but suggestive.

(Participant) I'd like to "challenge" my good friend Don:

>> A series of related questions worth discussing here are:

Do we want to put more power in the hands of WE, THE PEOPLE? <<

My answer is "No".

>> What kind of issues do we wish to assign to citizen participation (other than voting for representatives). <<

My answer is "None".

Now, take a deep breath!

We don't want to PUT more power in the hands of the people. We want the people to be able, and feel motivated, to exercise the power they already have. That means, first of all, removing or disabling the exercise of power by the economically-powerful whose authority is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It is this that effectively prevents the people, or discourages the people, from using the power they have. If you think I'm playing a semantic game, think again—I’m quite serious about this seemingly small distinction.

AND, we should not think in terms of "assigning" issues to be addressed by the people. The people can and will address the issues they care about. We should concern ourselves with educating and enabling, perhaps even encouraging. "Assigning", I don't buy.

We don't want to PUT more power in the hands of the people. We want the people to be able, and feel motivated, to exercise the power they already have. That means, first of all, removing or disabling the exercise of power by the economically-powerful whose authority is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It is this that effectively prevents the people, or discourages the people, from using the power they have. If you think I'm playing a semantic game, think again -- I'm quite serious about this seemingly small distinction.

I agree almost totally with the above statement. Nor do I consider that you are "playing". Now let me see if you will agree with what I consider our agreements:

* We both agree that citizens hold the major, and perhaps the only lever for diminishing the current problems we have been discussing.

* Both of us would like to find ways for encouraging (and perhaps empowering) citizens to exercise their power.

My suggestion for getting citizens to exercise this power (like the Democrat I have been) is to use the facilities of government to release citizens from their current apathy.

Your suggestion (like the good Republican that you are) is to keep government out of the solution as long as possible and to encourage citizens by "enabling and encouraging" them.

I would like your suggestion better than mine IF we could find a way to accomplish it.

My suggestion for further dialogue on this would be as follows:

* Seek consensus on why we want to encourage more participation by citizens.

* Seek consensus on what topics and in what depth we would like to see citizens exercise their power.

* Seek consensus on whether and how our encouragement of citizen participation is likely to succeed.

* After the above, agree on any additional "government encouragement/empowerment" might be needed to jump start the voluntary participation we agree is necessary.

1. Democratic institutions that come from the church (theories of councils (college of cardinals following on the French concilliar movement in the 11th century) and representation (from the mystical body of the church.) Eric Voegelin's eight volume history of political ideas is central to this study, I don't fully agree with his conclusions, but he has dealt with the full range of issues.

2. Science: science thinks it is culturally neutral. I love science and grew up in it. But to the extent it narrows questions - human nature in particular - if becomes an instrument of power, not of full humanity. Books such as Toulmin's Cosmopolis show that the science culture (enlightenment) was a response to the crisis of the 1600's, a desire for a minimalist dialog so as to stop the killing about spirit matters. He says that if we look at the previous generation: Shakespeare, Erasmus, Rabelais, we see a much richer conception of humanity that was put aside in the crisis time. OK, he says, but now we can go back to those questions. The Books of David Noble showing the rise of science out of the monastic anti-feminine culture and his The religion of Technology showing that the transformation language of tech comes from the Christian tradition and the reformation, and Bremmers Law and Revolution shows that the reformation, revolution language was the church’s language when it broke away from the political power of the early HRE. The current work of Bruno Latour shows that we have mixed up science method and political method in amazing ways, and Francis Bacon began scientific method by using the ten methods of the law "torture nature in the laboratory to get her to reveal her secretes."

3. A basis for our state versus community split is the separation of church and state. The Islamic reaction is showing that a belief in the deeper mission of god-humanity requires keeping individual exploitation of tech and commerce under some control. I think this hints at where the future might go as people world over are looking for re-embracing traditional beliefs as a way for gaining some community well being in the balance with markets. I’ve no idea where this goes, just that it is important. Giving favor to science is seen by its opponents as giving favor to a religious (belief system) orientation *and violates the neutrality of the constitution!).

So, the three issues; democracy, science and separation of church and state we must face if we are to make a difference.

+ Dictatorship and centralized economy (there are many examples in Asia and Africa)

+ Dictatorship with semblance of a free economy (China)

+ Representative governments and a semi-free economy (Europe, the U. S.)

Are there any fresh three dimensional models?

What are some of the dimensions that are missing here? Globalization?

Neither markets nor science nor democracy want people to be full, even when individually many believe in them because of their potential for a fuller humanity. The three together have worked to strip out the human- community dimension.

The history of this development is known but not widely. From the rise of absolute kings contra the church in say the 12th century through the modern nation state, using the people has been core.

Progress has come when there are checks and balances, between capital and governance, between branches of government, between civil society ad governance, between religion and state.

The problem is that when they get aligned, the coherence that emerges becomes the goal of power and ownership and control.

Which is to say I agree with you both, and think you (we) need to be able to tell it as a story - that is - as a history - of how it came about - and what now to lead towards?

The pre-modern world had a single dimension defined by moral conduct in a religious framework. I was born and raised in the pre-modern world. I could not escape religion even if I wanted to. It is hard for anyone who has not experienced this uni-dimensional world to imagine it. Everything (and I mean everything from what I was allowed to eat to what to wear, and how to think) was defined by the moral edict of Islam. The Shah’s struggle with the ayatollahs was to change this uni-dimensional world into a modern two-dimensional world.

The project of enlightenment in the 18th century was to shed man from the burden of religion. The secular modern civilization that emerged had two dimensions of economics, and politics as I described earlier. Religion had no place in modernity. Modernity, in fact, is godless by definition.

Douglass, now has invoked the moral question, and if I am correct, he has framed it in a secular humanism doctrine. This, however, will not be an adequate response to the religious right in the West, and to the ayatollahs. They will reject it outright by arguing that it is just an extension of modernism. It indicates its bankruptcy. You cannot have a secular moral society. It will, eventually either gravitate toward accepting God, or will destroy itself. They will point out to the problems of the West; drugs, promiscuous sex out of wedlock… its nihilism.

For the uneducated masses who fill the mosques every Friday it is enough to know that West is Godless and has to be destroyed. They step out of the mosque and have no problem setting off the next bomb.

So, the question is how to bring this THIRD DIMENSION that Doug is suggesting without accepting Reverend Falwell, or Ayatollah Khomeini?

How can we have God, and remain godless?

(Participant)

An interesting view of what's happening from Evolutionary Psychology. The following quote is from the web site http://www.evoyage.com/Whatis.html

"At the core of evolutionary psychology is the belief that all humans on the planet have innate areas in their brains which have specific knowledge that help them adapt to local environments. These areas are highly specialized, and only activate when the information is needed. These areas give the brain specific algorithmic (step by step) instructions that have evolved from our ancestral pasts to adapt to all situations, including the situations that we face today. But since our brains were conditioned to live in deep history, as E.O. Wilson has named our ancestral past, and not to modern conditions, the result is a gray area between genes and culture that drives some humans into depressive states. The best essay that I have read concerning the dilemma concerning why we humans sometimes feel disconnected in our modern world was Robert Wright's Time magazine cover story of August 28, 1995, p. 50. The title of the essay, "The Evolution of Despair: a new field of science [evolutionary psychology], examines the mismatch between our genetic makeup and the modern world, looking for the source of our pervasive sense of discontent." To quote one particular gripping sentence: "Whether burdened by an overwhelming flurry of daily commitments or stifled by a sense of social isolation (or, oddly, both); whether mired for hours in a sense of life's pointlessness or beset for days by unresolved anxiety; whether

deprived by long workweeks from quality time with offspring or drowning in quantity time with them - whatever the source of stress, we at times get the feeling that modern life isn't what we were designed for."

Well, if we are not suited for the modern world, how and why did we make it this far? Why don't we heed the call of our "selfish" genes and say, the heck with it—and fornicate like bunny rabbits in the streets? Because we would scare the horses off, silly. No, I'm just kidding of course. But it does bring up a most important point: That socialization norms and cultures at local environments do have greater influence on our behaviors than some behaviorists wish to admit."

That is why the despair sentences are so interesting. And reflects on the problem of depression, and Prozac and its equivalents. Life is depressing. it should move us to want to change things. If society is going in a weird direction, while we can adapt, our sense may be that it is wrong. But Prozac takes away the feeling, makes us ok with the assembly line and the loneliness.

If we add to the monopolization the use of antidepressants and energy suppressors (Ritalin for children who are what we used to admire—energetic), we see that we are taking away feedback on our perhaps lousy performance as a society.

Depression is pretty interesting. I recall a fascinating documentary a few years ago in which it was noted that depression occurs in primates with roughly the same frequency as humans. An interesting difference is that in primates the group utilizes the hyper alertness of depressed members as lookouts.

All the people I know who suffer from depression just hate it. I have absolutely no way to know if their internal experience is different than my own or if they just relate to it differently. Anger and powerlessness seem to characterize their descriptions. We are all angry and powerless at times to some extent. Do people who describe themselves as depressed endure longer periods, more intense anger, less power?

I never saw a depressed person who didn't have a good reason. Not good enough for such depression, but good. that is why it is important to understand and give dignity to the depression as something really important, not to drug it away.

In the really days of Prozac since I was seeing clients who were using it, I decided to try it. It is like taking he base string off the guitar. I missed the slow dark feedback. Once you've tried it the mental state can more or less be willed into existence.

(Participant) I agree with your thoughts about depression. What provisions do we, as a society, make to empower the depressed individual to participate in the social structure from that depressed place? We are, in many ways, a society that is very unforgiving of any behavior that is not "normal" based on some set of imposed criteria. Speaks to the point of article in re: the conflict between new structure and old genetics.

(Participant) 1) The United States has a long history of attracting individuals from diverse backgrounds. They come to escape oppression from rulers or tribal loyalties and restrictions.

The Civil War was fought to abolish legal definitions of individuals, and is continued in the civil rights movement.

All major external wars have achieved public support by presenting the cause of bringing democratic individual freedom to others, not by imposing it, but by creating conditions of freedom and security, in which local citizens can create their own democratic government. It is always assumed that given the opportunity, everyone in the world will prefer individual freedom, if given the chance to enjoy it. So it has proven in Germany and in Japan, although only after the most complete destruction of their previous tribal, oppressive societies.

Societies, however, are inherently conservative, like plate tectonics --- it takes an enormous buildup of pressures to effect a sudden change. When we are used to living one way we are uncomfortable adapting to another.

For the first time, in Afghanistan and Iraq, this generally altruistic population of the USA is imposing democracy on tribal societies whose deep and historically entrenched customs have not been destroyed, only suppressed by bigotry and a technical superiority in weapons of destruction.

This matter is further complicated by the fact that the standard of living of the conquerors has progressed far beyond the daily struggle for sufficient food, water, clothing, health and security that is the lot of the conquered. Media trumpets the differences. They are resented, because they are based on a commercial power that is as unequal as the military force.

Should we then be surprised, when our altruism, our desire to benefit others, is slow to achieve results? The United States, with about one hundredth of the world’s population, consumes a large majority of the world’s resources to maintain an individual standard of living it will not willingly reduce. The worldwide availability of public communication has made the "have nots" aware of the way the "others" live, with a visual reality that did not exist a generation ago -- from being the country others hope one day to reach, to enjoy a new life of freedom — it is becoming a country so difficult to enter that it is viewed as an economic oppressor. The backdrop scenery of the opera has changed.

2) Perhaps nothing fundamental has changed over all history. I speak of the struggle in every society to integrate the factors you suggest. What HAS changed, in my lifetime, is the ability to individuals and NGOs to control and deploy destructive powers that formerly were available only to national governments. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I always enjoyed the rhyme:

It is a bit of a paradox that in order to protect our freedoms, we must abandon some of them. How do you regain the image exemplified by the Statue of Liberty? Do you want to?

Douglass Carmichael Sandy's response is very interesting, and gets my thinking going.

But first, just to hint at how much is going on, this on a need for a new economics

http://www.paecon.net/

Douglass Carmichael Sandy's comment helps clarify the issues. So I will respond as if we were in a conversation together.

Sandy, I notice that your note stresses the drama of the quest for a good life against the backdrop of world traumas. The United States is presented as a beacon for its own citizens and those of the world. The actual conditions in the United States are treated as an adequate embodiment of freedom and standard of living.

There are a few phrases that you use that to me heighten the sense of drama because actual conditions do not live up to the promise.

Note in particular, "democratic individual freedom" and "standard of living". The idea of "freedom" emerged deeply in the Puritan revolution as the right of each person to choose how to live based on their own conscience under the gaze of their god. But when we got to the constitution 100 years later freedom was framed as private property. John Locke had separated value from things and treated property as the haven against the power of the state. In the mix-ups, "individual freedom" moved from the area of individual conscience to the right to do what I want with my property. This reduction of the good life to property is mirrored in the phrase "standard of living", which is defined in purely dollar and material terms.

So the quest of heartfelt human beings for a better life is met by the reality of gated communities, low paying jobs, and declining social mobility.

So the opera is about the heart-crushing impact of discovering a reality that does not fit our dreams. We need to face how the United States has actually dealt with immigrant populations. The Irish, Italians, and Chinese in the past and the Latinos into the present were accommodated based on economic motives and met with community resentments. The ability of those waves of immigration to be accommodated was based on a growing economy. This is now in question.

To me the challenge of staging the opera is how to portray how positive ideals can become mind numbing ideology and yet the idealism stays alive in all the participants.

If you can imagine the lead character in the play quoting your last line "it is a bit of a paradox that in order to protect our freedoms, we must abandon some of them." To my ear that line is out of Ibsen, or 1984. It is so painful that we cannot talk to our companion as we leave the theater.

I am sure we would have some good arguments on how to stage this opera. Dealing with the ironies would require some real complexity.

(Participant) For about five years I lived in a California beach community (Bolinas) that was saved from being "Californiaized" by an influx of Berkeley intellectuals and hippies who came to save the birds after an oil spill. There was a strong sense of community and low regard for materialism. No one would want to be seen in a necktie or a luxury car. The contrast with every other place I've ever lived, even communities only a few miles from Bolinas, was striking. Whidbey Island may be that way, Doug, enabling you to care deeply about the loss of the higher values that would animate a true democracy. Thanks to my Bolinas experience, I can understand.

Douglass Carmichael Well, I have chosen... but not lived in the red counties, only the blue ones.

One question, where are the good communities now—arts, ideas, walkability...? My little town of seven hundred is fairly underdeveloped. I spent a summer on Hydra, a Greek island near Epidavarous (sp). No cars or motor bikes, only donkeys, because the hillside around the port area is too steep. The population is larger and I loved it. Each day everyone comes down to the port, and cross paths with each other and talk. No one starts the day knowing where they will have dinner—it all gets arranged in those conversations. But the expat world is weird.

The healthiest communities now?

Richard, let me ask, what would a true democracy look like?

If we had our current system and a much more informative press and a population who liked education, I'd be satisfied we could make it.

This evening I ran across the following…rather right wing:

At any rate, the old America —the America of hard work and sound

money, of thrift and piety, of small property and free markets, of individual freedom and responsibility, of limited government and dispersed power—is gone.

The kind of people who made the old America hardly exists anymore.

Their descendants might as well belong to another species; anyway,

They will soon be outnumbered by aliens and "minorities." Few women now would even think of having large families.

Americans neither remember the old America nor comprehend the new one,

Which defies comprehension? What is an "American" these days?

Someone who has filled out the proper forms? One out of hundreds of

millions of disinherited people, who have nothing in common but a

government that supplies them with depreciating paper currency? A mere

digit of the empire, I suppose.

That last line is telling. I am impressed with the horror the right has of Bush.

(Participant) I'm afraid that writer remembers a time that never existed. Americans work very hard now—long hours. Piety? More Americans go to church now. Sound money? Small property? Women didn't want large families, they were required. Now communities are eroding, and we are no doubt more materialistic, but in most ways we are a better society than this person remembers from the good old days.

I'm with you, Doug, on the necessary condition for democracy. If we could remove the cloud of ignorance that hangs over us, I would feel comfortable in trusting the process. There would be divergence of opinion, but along with it wisdom and the inevitable consequence of wisdom is inquiry, humility and compassion, the necessary ingredients of democracy, and of foreign relations. The trouble is that education as we now have it is unrelated to wisdom. It needn't be, but we don't seem to be able to get there from here.

(Participant) As I view it, the dialogue in the last few days authored by Dick, Doug, and Kip strikes me to be more related to nostalgia than reality. When we threw away the neck tie, relatively neat clothing, and good grammar in our speech, a lot of other good living went with them.

I, too, would like to return to the culture and values they describe, but I doubt if that is possible in the US today. The communities that appear in nostalgic thinking are small, relatively uncrowded, and usually with a homogenous culture -- e.g. Doug's memories of his Island and Hydra or, for that matter, La Jolla. I, too, live today on a similar Island community here in Maine. But today, even as in the past, those visions of culture and integrity can be shared by a relative minority.

I see our challenge as not trying to re-create history, but rather to invent new visions that might fit into future conditions. It would be interesting to dig into the rich record of these discussions and pick out those "future wishes" that could survive modern environments.

(Participant) Don, you point is well taken. I feel lucky to have grown up in a modest, but culturally advanced home, where those values of classical literature, music, art, and grammar were cherished, and contributed to good living. Materialism, however, was not one of those values, and that may be the key to the difference.

Douglass Carmichael So, OK, let's deal with the big NOW. But understanding causes seems to me important and because the momentum of the past moves through the present towards the future, it also helps get a grasp on the future possibilities (hard to go against momentum).

Don, the reason why I keep my eye on small communities is that I believe that is actually where most people want to be, and the future - yes future - possibilities are to break the "system" and move towards local and regional economies.

This will happen if two forces stay strong:

1. Balancing out of world wages make local production more attractive from a strictly financial point of view.

2. Economies in stagnation or with many people left out of progress, means that those people constitute a local market for jobs and goods.

What can ruin it is

1. War and security measures that would impose conformity

2. The difficulty of getting local land (try buying a farm in Iowa).

3. Legal and regulatory constraints that make it impossible to buy local goods (building codes).

So the outcome is not determined.

Another wild card is the rise of bionics and the fate of a population hooked on the medicalization of everything.

Future wishes are few these days. And no future will be built except out of the past. The great lesson in history has to be the deep continuities. Look at the center of Washington and the Romanesque buildings, and the car as just a variation of the cart, communications as an extension of the telegraph - smoke signals history.

Family structure in Paleolithic.

I think the approach to the future is to set off thinking it will be transformative and wonderful. We need to look at the conditions that led to Mussolini and the Third Reich. Those conditions still persist. We just have more people (entropy?) and eh difficulties that are manifest through crowding and speed.

We need to identify leverage points. To me a key problem is the law around Incorporation. It was and is a real social mistake to have allowed corporations to escape chartering provisions.

I once did a workshop with the leadership of a computer company that was known for lack of cooperation. I had the meeting room covered by the HR department with movie posters (to resonate with their sense of drama), and before we started they had organized a pool to decide who would get the posters at the end of the day.

What kind of knowledge travels fast in this society? Can it be piggybacked on, somehow? In Boulder Colorado a few years ago there was a campaign to help homeless children. Dolls were made, and a child's story stitched on, and the dolls were left in public places, benches, bus stops, malls... and generated the contributions they wanted.

So to me the future, in its complexity, can actually shift rapidly, look at the anxiety about natural gas, and behind the scenes some really interesting stuff going on on oil futures. We have a number of volatile systems in flux at the same time. Social glue however is amazingly conservative in that habits just continue. More tragedies, like major terrorism stuff tends to distract people and actually maintain continuity, as people keep their habits going. The Bush strategy will be to keep us dependent on them to protect us. And then there is a new impeachment buzz. And the economy, and energy, and war and Mexico and....

Previous Page          Next Page

top