Robespierre before he achieved the French revolution stated that he wanted "a revolution without having a revolution." What he meant was that he wanted to dramatically change the french system of government without being killed. Robespierre eventually achieved revolution and he was also hung.
Much like Robespierre, the left witnesses a society that they hate. George Carlin actually made a smart comment in his video when he said "why should i want to make the world a better place when i can't even fix myself?" Carlin has so many personal problems that he doesn't even want to think about the problems of the world. He jokes that left wing radicals often transfer their own dissatisfaction with themselves into their vision for a broken world. then by fixing the world they would also be fixing themselves.
Its much like my post about 'the perfect gift'. The left sees problems with the world, and they want to change those problems. But once they achieve their change they are never satisfied. they envision that saving the whales will make them happy and bring them fulfillment. but once they save the whales they will eventually transfer their disatisfaction to another cause. The night before the government announces their policy change on saving the whales, is excatly like christmas eve. and on the day the govenrment makes changes, there will be a celebration, they will go to the bar and talk about what comes next. but can they ever be fulfilled? Can the perfect cause ever be achieved.
You witness the excact opposite (and equally as misled approach) within the radical right. rather than transferring their disatisfaction with themsleves into a political vision of disatisfaction, the right denies that they are disatisfied with the world. they believe the world is perfect the way it is and doesn't need change. the extreme right are too scared to admit that there are shortcoming in the world so they cover their ears and sing themselves lullabyes that their mom used to sing them as a child. they choose leaders who promise not to change things very much and will uphold the status quo of capitalism. for these people, Stephen harper is the greatest PM in history because he's boring, doesn't change very many things, and is an economist before he is a politician.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I think what you have written here is very profound and very true about the psychology of how and why people attach themselves to certain political ideologies. If I was born rich and religious, I can most probably assume that I would be a right wing evangelist who wants nothing more than things to stay the course, the way God would want it. Since I was born poor and an under atheistic values, I hate a lot of aspects about the society that I live in, for various reasons, and want drastic change to occur. I suppose that the only way to keep the peace between differing groups is to form a middle ground, again through synthesis of ideologies. Perhaps given enough time to evolve, we will reach a common ideology that will unify a population. Unfortunately though, as you have noted, I believe that we are too restless in our skins and perhaps we will never be satisfied. Maybe that is why we are slowly being dumbed back down by the powerful wealthy academic leaders and thinkers - to calm the unrest. Its too bad greed plays such a huge factor in the lives of all in a capitalist system. Why can't intelligence be the currency of a society. Can we not find a unified intelligent solution to our problems where conflict can be minimal through patience, understanding, and tolerance. "Why can't we be friends?"
Why can't we be friends?...
Where do I start?
We can't be friends because the system is inherently competitive. Economics is convinced that people need $$ incentive on order to undertake risk and innovation trough developing new technologies and producing 'goods'. What wordplay. As if everything produced and sold in unquestioningly a good. And yet we call them such when we factor them into GDP through 'goods' and services.
We can't be friends because the wealth from the rich comes from others being alienated from their labour. when I work in a factory or an office, indeed I am paid for my services through a salary or a wage but that amount that I am paid to work is necessarily less than the value of the thing I produce – be it assembling a car or computer, giving investment advice, undertaking administrative tasks, or selling clothing or cheap stuff at a department store. The point is that profit comes from the surplus of revenue generated after wages and overhead costs, etc., and this is a problem if you believe that you should benefit fully from producing something with your own labour (both physical and mental) However with private property, those who own a house or a corporation, etc. necessarily have the power to exclude other from the benefits of that house and the space it occupies or that corporation and the profits it makes. In a corporation much profit goes to shareholders and executives who although they manage the functioning of the organization, do not physically take part in the bulk of the labour required to turn a profit. This act of benefiting from the labour of others is called exploitation. Maybe we can be friends but the well being of some depends on others being exploited. Although I might confide in and respect my boss or a wealthy person, I am fully aware that the system itself - capitalism - privileges private property at a detriment to most.
Intelligence can't be the currency of society until we can all agree on what intelligence is. How do you define intelligence? Is it knowledge of a common history? Knowledge of mathematics and the natural sciences? Knowledge of the value of democracy and capitalism? Indeed the Enlightenment was an attempt to rally people towards a goal of enlightenment. If you believe that you possessed reason (intelligence) and that you could use your own judgement to make decisions then you were considered enlightened and you were rational and free. But to this day we are still arguing about semantics. What do is mean to be reasonable? Is it to do what is best for yourself? Or others? To do what is best in the short term? mid-term? Long term? Do you act locally, nationally , globally? How would you know what is best? How would you know if someone else knew what was best? I find these questions difficult to answer and for that reason I am skeptical about the possibility of using intelligence as a common currency. We are constantly fighting over what it means to be intelligent such as western medicine vs. Eastern Medicine or a traditional academic education vs. being able to provide for you own basic needs through farming, hunting, building structures, etc. I believe intelligence is circumstantial and we will continue to fight or the definition of intelligence because what is at stake is value for our unique cultures and our unique forms of education. Until we all have the same culture and way of educating our people the same laws, etc., there will be no common form of intelligence with which to use intelligence as a common currency.
Post a Comment