Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Is Revolution Possible in the United States?

Perhaps not. After all, the U.S. is composed of a vastly more diverse population than that which existed approximately two hundred and thirty five years ago. At the same time, we may be, despite our diversity, less robust, physically and mentally, than our forefathers. If that is true, this may be due to the numerous and spectacular Enlightenment and Industrial Age driven achievements of the last one hundred and fifty odd years, achievements which have driven our collective quality of life relatively sky high, and equally, substantially raised our collective expectations of the future. In short, we Americans have become soft and riddled with a sense of entitlement that may work against finding the necessary fortitude to vigorously defend our fast receding Constitutional rights.

And if that weren't enough, how on earth is a diverse and shockingly ignorant population of over three hundred million people supposed to find enough common ground amongst itself to inspire the sort of effort that brings about a revolution? For example, I would very much like to see much less central government, and yet, for the most part, I abhor those who describe themselves as Republicans since they tend to hew to the idea that much of the Federal government's functioning should be turned over to a minimally regulated "Private Sector." And those not in slavish devotion to a corporate master operating in lieu of Federal Government, are, too often, in thrall to religious doctrine that invariably envisions government operating as a theocracy. Finally, it almost goes without saying that the typical "starve the beast" conservative has no interest in environmental conservation except, perhaps, in the abstract, via the application of such know nothing nostrums as "A Thousand Points of Light."

On the other side of the aisle, those who describe themselves as Democrats, and possibly liberals, though they are by no means one and the same, seem entirely content to have the state support a veritable bazaar of programs that, when closely examined, seldom add value to society except as a great grift mill from which a select number of public and private operators may pluck their living. In a sense, there is less to rail against where this is concerned, since Clinton long ago killed the social welfare state as we knew it. But, despite (wolf in sheep's clothing) Clinton's mostly successful efforts to co-opt and water down his Republican rival's agenda, the ethos of Federal Government maddeningly sticking its craw anywhere and everywhere (in the service of addressing a seemingly endless and sometimes arbitrary litany of perceived wrongs) still seems very much a part of the Democrat's modus operandi.

More disturbingly is the tendency both political parties have of displaying, at best, benign neglect towards the Constitution as suits their purposes. In truth, there have been too many egregious acts by both sides against the Constitution to mention, but, as infuriating as is the Democrat's systematic refusal to accept The Second Amendment's prescription in favor of the individual's right to bear arms, and as deplorable as is the Republican's attitude towards the separation of church and state (which proscribes religion from public affairs) perhaps the greater problem is that both parties are essentially bought and paid for servants of corporate power, which itself is an abomination, since no corporation should ever, under any circumstances, have the same rights and privileges as a living breathing person.

At the risk of going on something of a Marxist rant, corporate power has seemingly turned "We The People" into consumers first and citizens a distant second such that our every activity, whether we are conscious of it or not, is, in some way, in the service of some corporation's bottom line. I hasten to add that corporate imperatives diverge in many respects from those ideals enshrined in the Constitution, though certainly one could argue that successfully running a business (of any size) may equate with the idea of the pursuit of happiness for many people. Fair enough, and the point here is not to attack corporatism per se, though there is plenty to attack, but to outline the obstruction that corporatism poses to the very idea of revolution, let alone revolutionary activity itself.

As we can see, there exist, in our time, a wide range of conditions that are antithetical to the drive towards revolutionary change, which I define, in this time and place, not as a movement towards something new, as was the case in the eighteenth century, but as the reclamation of something already in existence, yet buried. So the original question, loaded as it is at this point, remains. Is revolution possible? In trying to answer it, we would do well to remember that the Constitution though great, is frail, and has, in the end, only one true advocate, "We The People."

8 comments:

Thai said...

Lots in here for me to agree with and you know how I like cooperation ;-)

Re: the challenges of diverse societies maintaining cohesion for things like indignation and revolution.

Amen

Indeed, this has always been one of my main points. I personally think there are levels of diversity that are simply too great for most people to handle, which incidentally is the explanation most physicians I know have for the correlation between health and income equality- e.g. income equality is a surrogate marker for social diversity as a whole. Less income inequality means less social diversity in general (and I mean diversity in every imaginable usage, not just the limited view of racial diversity within society).

You read about complexity science just as do I. I know you know of some of their conclusions.

As diversity lessens, empathy increases as people can understand each other more and more.

Remember, most people are good at heart.


And re: Clinton long ago killed the social welfare state as we knew it.

This is where our potential careers may give us different birds eye accounts of what is happening.

Welfare roles were lessened- "yes".

But there has been a MASSIVE increase in the corresponding disability roles. And while this has not been a 1:1 transfer. It has been pretty darn close.

Look it up yourself if you do not believe me. Disability payments now make up 20% of social security receipts, not to mention all the other ways in which disability is now covered.

Indeed, if one were to use disability payments as a marker of how safe our society is, we should go back to the days when major industrial accidents were commonplace as we had WAY less disability then.

Call a spade a spade.

Re: the role of religion (and magic) in human thought and beliefs.

Amen

Re: "don't want (feral) government and yet don't want unregulated private sector."

... I guess State (or local) government is better then?

And re: "no corporation should ever, under any circumstances, have the same rights and privileges as a living breathing person."

Amen again.

AND may I suggest your are committing the very sin your abhor here in this post?

For you are talking about corporations as if they are people when they are nothing more than paper shells under which groups of people congregate and nothing more.

I won't pull a Deb and go into the linguistic determinism but it sure seems like you are letting language and linguistics control your thoughts on this one. For you do seem to talk about them as if they are individuals.

When you hear someone say "corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes!", what exactly does this mean?

Is this very sentence not committing the same sin your so abhor?

As I said before, we ALL (indeed, me too) suffer from cognitive dissonance. ;-)

Thai said...

By the way, what do you do for a living?

Edwardo said...

Thai, thanks for the very thoughtful response to my post.

With regard to your following point:

"AND may I suggest your are committing the very sin your abhor here in this post?

For you are talking about corporations as if they are people when they are nothing more than paper shells under which groups of people congregate and nothing more."

What exactly is it I abhor in my post?

As for your suggestion, I don't concur. What I am doing, objectively speaking, is referring to corporations as the legal entities they are. It does not follow that in doing so I either condone or legitimize their existence as presently defined. In any case they clearly do not require my imprimatur.

Corporations are a legal construct, but just because they are, as you put it, "paper shells," does not mean that they are not formidable entities.

I would hope that what someone means when they say corporations ought to pay more in taxes is simply the practical acknowledgment that since corporations/paper shells have all the rights and privileges of individuals, yet with obviously immense advantages over individuals, they ought to have a different tax structure.

Edwardo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edwardo said...

BTW, I hasten to add that this information is not something I particularly wish to share with the general public-very few visit this blog, so I am not overly concerned with sharing it with you here- so I would prefer that you not reference it, even if it seems germane, at, for example, sudden debt.

Thai said...

re: "I would hope that what someone means when they say corporations ought to pay more in taxes is simply the practical acknowledgment that since corporations/paper shells have all the rights and privileges of individuals, yet with obviously immense advantages over individuals, they ought to have a different tax structure."

But this is to treat them as individuals when they are not.

Who are we taxing in the end?

The people who own and work for these corporations.

It is just a way of taxing them twice- which is fine if we want to do that.

But again, government control of the economy is reach all time highs

Thai said...

Just curious, thanks. Go ahead and delete the post re: your career if you wish.

I can keep a secret

Edwardo said...

I see your point regarding taxing folks twice. Well taken.