Nicely laid out. Somehow, capitalism was contained by FDR and up to Dwight Eisenhower, there were constraints on the very rich to pull their share of the common good by paying taxes. Now that has changed and the working stiffs are supporting the common good poorly and the ultra rich corporations are sitting on money that is doing nothing but letting them buy the government.
"The world contains a host of anti-democratic societies. The Orwellian society of China. The criminal nation-state of Russia. The fundamentalist-religion nations, repressive and barbaric. The failed nations riddled with corrupt officials.
Closer to home, there is the currently anti-democratic economic system called capitalism."
The way this is written appears to imply that democracy is the best system. But what is your specific criticism of the "Orwellian" society of China, or the "criminal nation-state of Russia" or the "fundamentalist-religion nations"? All of the above have vibrant histories and cultures, vastly longer than any self-proclaimed "democratic" nation, the modern iterations of which are -- as you say -- not remotely democratic. As far as I'm concerned the belief that democracy, in theory, is the best, is no different than the same belief of communism, or capitalism for that matter (don't mind me blending economic and political systems). These are all just ideas which rarely (never?) materialize in practice the way they are thought up, and evolve into something else anyhow as time passes.
Many animal societies are hierarchical, or for example formed around a "queen". Is that bad? Do they need to change because they are undemocratic?
"Society will not be a success just by altering the choice of economic system, or by improving the existing one. Technical expertise comes later, as does enlightened guidance. Before the system can be successful, the people must change."
Society already is a success, is it not? People and everything will change and are changing. Most of that is probably happening not on a conscious level. Why is it philosophically unacceptable for you to imagine a society where some desire to be subservient? Why do you request that people change? Have you changed? Are you what other people should strive to be? Or are you calling for yourself to change?
Do you seek it for others, who may not seek it themselves? Do you presume to know what's best for others?
"Culture and tradition seeps into your bones and your DNA. Generations and generations of serfs, slaves, and just plain old grunts in one’s ancestry installs a pattern which must be purged and corrected inside us before true social change is possible."
Again, why is social change mandatory? Why must we intentionally purge and "correct" (much suffering in the past has been triggered by such "corrective" endeavors). Does the decision that we "must change" actually cause anyone to change?
I wrote this piece several months back. I have a few other things in the hopper that have not been mailed out.
Nicely laid out. Somehow, capitalism was contained by FDR and up to Dwight Eisenhower, there were constraints on the very rich to pull their share of the common good by paying taxes. Now that has changed and the working stiffs are supporting the common good poorly and the ultra rich corporations are sitting on money that is doing nothing but letting them buy the government.
"The world contains a host of anti-democratic societies. The Orwellian society of China. The criminal nation-state of Russia. The fundamentalist-religion nations, repressive and barbaric. The failed nations riddled with corrupt officials.
Closer to home, there is the currently anti-democratic economic system called capitalism."
The way this is written appears to imply that democracy is the best system. But what is your specific criticism of the "Orwellian" society of China, or the "criminal nation-state of Russia" or the "fundamentalist-religion nations"? All of the above have vibrant histories and cultures, vastly longer than any self-proclaimed "democratic" nation, the modern iterations of which are -- as you say -- not remotely democratic. As far as I'm concerned the belief that democracy, in theory, is the best, is no different than the same belief of communism, or capitalism for that matter (don't mind me blending economic and political systems). These are all just ideas which rarely (never?) materialize in practice the way they are thought up, and evolve into something else anyhow as time passes.
Many animal societies are hierarchical, or for example formed around a "queen". Is that bad? Do they need to change because they are undemocratic?
"Society will not be a success just by altering the choice of economic system, or by improving the existing one. Technical expertise comes later, as does enlightened guidance. Before the system can be successful, the people must change."
Society already is a success, is it not? People and everything will change and are changing. Most of that is probably happening not on a conscious level. Why is it philosophically unacceptable for you to imagine a society where some desire to be subservient? Why do you request that people change? Have you changed? Are you what other people should strive to be? Or are you calling for yourself to change?
Do you seek it for others, who may not seek it themselves? Do you presume to know what's best for others?
"Culture and tradition seeps into your bones and your DNA. Generations and generations of serfs, slaves, and just plain old grunts in one’s ancestry installs a pattern which must be purged and corrected inside us before true social change is possible."
Again, why is social change mandatory? Why must we intentionally purge and "correct" (much suffering in the past has been triggered by such "corrective" endeavors). Does the decision that we "must change" actually cause anyone to change?
I hope you are well, Roland. I was thinking about some of my first LFAA friends, and you popped into my head.
Hello Ally, I’m doing exceptionally well, thank you for asking. Working on reactivating this Substack page.