The best ideal

I have this feeling that I’m running out of steam these days and for that reason I think I’ll attempt to tackle a very risky and difficult topic this time just to get the juices flowing. I could easily have gone for another topic, since so much has taken place both here in Greece and around the world, but regardless of the fact that they could all serve as a great source for material I don’t think I can actually contribute right now in any meaningful way, and especially not from over here. So, since I am bound to fail today lets crash and burn instead with the following topic.

Today’s topic once again stems from a discussion I had with a friend of mine when we were talking politics and we were trying to figure out, for fun, which political system would work best in its ideal form. In short, which would be preferable if it existed in the form its creator(s) had in mind? Ideal communism, ideal monarchy, ideal democracy, ideal anarchy, etc? Most people, and especially the people at the same table as me and my friend, were unable to follow our conversation since they all had the same complaint, that is, that all forms of government in their ideal form are perfect by definition so there can be no disagreement on which is actually preferable since any of them would do the job. This is true, but only partly so. It is true that they would all do the job; but the job implied is only social governance. There is indeed some form of order imposed upon society in all the above mentioned forms of governance and they, in some form, can indeed function. But is that all one wants from society, some established rule of governance?

The point me and my friend raised together is that most political systems never seem to account for the nature of man itself and how he behaves and lives. So not matter how much one tries, you will always get some degree of imposed governance, some unavoidable oppression of certain members of society, or people in direct affect with that society. (A good example of such a group are the slaves during the Ancient Greek democracy of Athens). What we need to answer then about each form of governance is which system actually considers the most relevant factors directly related with society. Which system tried to take int account all the relevant factors and process them into a working, applicable, theory of governance?

Immediately we were able to reject perfect communism, as described by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The reason behind that being that these two when composing their thesis (which regardless what history will make of it, it remains a massive  and very important effort of sociological and economic analysis) they understood society as groups of people, as social strata, essentially removing the individual from the picture and treating society as masses. The individual is not treated as an individual, rather they claim that his social position and societal role is something which cannot be removed from his immediate identity and continue on to work on their ideas on that premise. Communism is indeed solid as a system of organisation and social governance but it is not complete. It is not robust, as it has left out the individual as an entity and, after all, a society is comprised of individuals.

Monarchy’s problem is similar to that of communism, but only so in effect, not in root. What this means is that during a monarchy, where a very strict system of governance is established and the gap in power is as big as it could be, both legally and actually, renders the vast majority of people devoid of any personal freedom or room for personal growth. The problem here is more direct and its consequences seen immediately in the general psychology of the populace. Fear coming first and being at higher levels than in other systems. I don’t think this needs further elaboration, you cannot have a society based on fear and oppression, all of which derive from the whims of a single individual. The social structure wont survive it, and even if it does, the society wont really go far in terms of progress in various ways because everything will have to be allowed on an individual basis. In the end, as I said the problem is similar to communism’s problem, in that it cover the social structure issue but that alone is not enough. Even if fear is nonexistent, the lack of personal freedom due to the dependency upon others and the need for allowance renders the whole thing a ticking bomb.

Absolute anarchy also doesn’t cut it but this time it goes completely the other way in that it celebrates human freedom and individuality but has no thesis about how societal structure is to exist within this system. Sometimes, anarchy, ironically, comes closest to the “law of the jungle” than other systems. Its defenders will come up and say that the individuals will be governing themselves and harmoniously coexist, since anarchy provides the mentality of “co-existance and understanding”. This is something to which I do have a soft spot for but I cannot completely buy into the argument for the simple reason that I cant give people that much credit. Its as Churchill said (but this time he was talking about democracy) “The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the voters”. Anarchy sometimes seems to try and emulate the beauty of Athenian direct democracy, where there were no heads of state and issues were resolved together, by the people. However practical issues, such as population size which bring forth a plethora of problems (how are you going to feed these people? someone needs to grow the wheat, that’s a full time job, that man might not have the time to be a fully-active citizen, is that fair?), is not something that is accounted in anarchy and remains an ideal further from reality than any other system unfortunately.

So. What do we have so far? There are two things that I can identify that any system needs to address after writing this piece. Social structure, and tendering to the human needs and psyche of its citizens! (It is interesting to note that several ex-communist thinkers when they saw the flaws of the system they used to support (such as Cornelius Castoriadis), turned to psychoanalysis in search for answer concerning the individual. This enriched their thinking and approach to all matters societal in their future work).

Reminding ourselves that we are dealing with the idealized form of each system, as they were first introduced (of course I can’t do them complete justice in this post, only use them to drive home the argument which I am about to make) we need to focus on the balance between the two and see how a political system has to cover them acceptably.

The main issue at first was the no system took into account human nature as something to consider when trying to organize social structure. Then came others who tried to put too much emphasis on the individual and ignore the fact that a society (in one of its various forms) will eventually be created, thus begging for some form of structure. This structure will continue to be challenged the more successful it will turn out to be because more and more will adopt it or try to enter it to reap its benefits. It only seems natural!

Democracy is still considered the most just system that we have, but as I’ve said in a previous post democracy is a very specific right that the members of the democratic society posses. This means that you could have various forms of democracy, but what I care about here, today, is whether or not the issue of the human psyche (a person as an individual), is actually considered and treated adequatelu when designing such a democracy. So far, I can think of only one such example in history. The American democracy as seen in theAmerican Constitution. It is the only democracy officially declared which promoted civil liberty and that it will struggle to maintain social structure in a just way, promoting equality and giving the power of governance to the people. Of course at the same time I am of the opinion that the whole edifice that are the USA is a colossal failure in terms of what it was founded upon, and what it actually is right now. But we are only talking about ideal versions. If we take away corruption and the many failures of the American government to stay true to its founding ideals, what we have is a marvelous treatment of what humans want and how society covers their needs, but also a just system of governance, essentially covering all that I have raised serious doubt for, so far in this little entry. There have been plenty of other declarations in the past that put the citizen in “the driving seat” of society, but I rarely do we seen heads of state actually standing trial like in the USA (although the Bush Administration has probably changed all that now. After all, this administration scared even Hunter Thompson). Yet, ideally, it fits the criteria, I feel.

The question, “which system looks upon the individual and builds a society around it” is quite complex. The reasons behind that are numerous but most obvious is the fact that there is no correct perspective upon which to look upon the individual. Do you see him as a psychodynamic being? as a member of society? as a social class? Do you deny him certain rights for utilitarian purposes, or do you believe that the individual will naturally bring about the desired social structure provided you tender to his basic needs?

In the end since there is no right answer we will have to settle with the answer that tops the rest.Its the best we’ve got. I love quoting Thomas Nagel’s “The View from Nowhere”  and I’ll do here here again, because I find it so appropriate. He said: “Our problem has […] no solution, but to recognize that is to come as near as we can to living in light of the truth”. This fits perfectly the problem of the same ideal. I have stayed true to the basic premise of this site and did the best I could be only providing food for thought. This is the best I can do here!

On representation and meritocracy

Seems that politics will continue to dominate my posts for a time, but if anything this is an opportunity for myself to organise my thoughts and place myself somewhere in the political spectrum (however unnecessary I find it).

This piece will be about my thoughts on representation within a democracy, its problems, and some of its advantages, so we’ll need to clear a few thing up before moving on, so let’s start with some semantics (which is something that nobody seems to consider when discussing politics or ideology anymore leading most arguments being petty and/or unresolved).

First of all, most people are not clear on what the basis of a democracy is. The word itself means that the people (specifically the community) are the ones who rule. Of course what it not made explicit in the meaning is the how the people govern and that is how democracy has been allowed to exist in many forms, and almost all of them keep the basis premise of the people being the one’s who govern. But this is not where I want this discussion to go, to the various forms of democracy so lets return to examining quickly on what it is at its core.

Some say that it is free speech, others claims that it is the ‘majority wins’ rule when in effect. The reality for those two examples is that they manifest naturally in a democracy but the basis of democracy began as a right for the citizens of a country or a city-state, as was the case in Ancient Greece. It was the right to voice your opinion and for it to count in matters of the public, something which still holds even to this day albeit at a different scale as we shall see. It is the right to vote and be voted. In Ancient times it was easy to gather the populace and decide on important matters since their numbers would be such that counting would be easy, today where the deciding body amounts in the millions it is inefficient to have them gather and decide. Plus the fact that once the people’s numbers grow so much more decisions and more matters pop up constantly meaning that more elections need to take place and more votes to be cast. Therefore democracy gave birth to meritocracy as a solution to deal with large numbers. Essentially granting ‘the best among us’ the right to choose and govern us by acting as our proxies on the important decisions we no longer are able to attend and vote on, for practical reasons such as  keeping the economy running over at the front lines. Democracy is maintained in that we are the one’s who decide who the best amongst us are, we voice our opinions on the matter and they count towards a decision being reached collectively. (This is where anarchism, proper anarchism, focuses its attention, rejecting proxies and wishing for the people to be the one’s to govern themselves in actuality. Perhaps after I am done with this piece you will associate me with the anarchism, but I don’t have an issue with that if you do, for indeed I breed some fondness for proper anarchism, yet at the same time I recognize that it is too much to ask for it to be established since I find people to be unable to take proper advantage of it.)

Meritocracy then is a direct descendant of democracy. We, in the western world, are experiencing a very limited form of it since we are only choosing the pool of candidates for government positions. Meaning, we are not choosing the best suited for health minister of foreign minister, for example. We are only choosing the potential candidates for those positions and leave it up to them to decide amongst them (or by their own choice of who’s best which is usually their leader) who will take which position. If we did indeed choose on that basis then the term would have been even more appropriate it would seem. This almost makes me agree with the point that once someone holds a ministerial position he or she should not be eligible or allowed to hold another such office especially if it is of unrelated nature since that person has been already deemed to be the best at x, so what is he doing at y? The counterargument to that is that most such governmental positions are merely administrative and managerial in nature and those skills are omni-applicable. Therefore a person can be extremely effective in both roles. I happen to feel that these positions are hardly “only administrative” and are actually more complicated and delicate. But this is for another time, back to our focus point.

By employing meritocracy we elect representatives, voices that echo our own voice in the forum where they can and should be heard in order for them to have an impact. Here lies my problem which led me to this whole piece. I feel that there is a gap between the people who elect their representative and the representative itself. The nature of this gap has various forms. It could be a gap in communication, meaning that the voter and representative might not have access to each other and work together, and another is the fact that voters are unable to alter their choice and are effectively distanced from the person they chose since he no longer is suitable in their eyes.

This gap is only ever bridged completely when the voter is tasked with casting his vote (essentially a vote of confidence). It is the only instant in which the voter associates himself (either partially or completely) with the representative candidate. Yet almost never can one claim to know exactly the person he or she has chosen. Its like I said in my previous post, I personally might have voted for Obama if I could but it seems, the more I monitor his presidency, that he leans differently than I expected on certain important (for me) issues, making him less and less the representative of my choice.

How responsible is every voter for the actions of their representative? I realise that throughout history several figures that have done more harm than good were given their powers democratically, even when there was ample evidence of what the future would hold if that person would come into power. But what about when there is not? I call upon Obama as my example again and his use of drones. Nobody expected that for instance and yet here we are.

We have ended up with a system that has a type of leap of faith tightly embedded in its operation. We are in essence tasked with guessing the future and reading a person we have no real, tacit, knowledge of and grant him powers to govern. Of course we can get it right sometimes and the system itself has not imploded even after all these years it has been practiced, so something must be working that eludes me. But for now these questions are, I feel, valid and important. They provide a glimpse to my anarchic streak but always remains reasonable. The question is, how reasonable is everything else I touched upon today.

(EDIT: because of issues such as the ones above and the kind of syllogisms they can leads to, we are, perhaps, hinting at why the system we have adopted in the majority of the Western world is considered the “best alternative we’ve got”. Its true. We have amble arguments against democracy and its variants but in the end it is the best we’ve got)

Quick piece on capitalism

I consider myself a capitalist with strong left-wing influences. Whilst I can see the benefits of a free economy and a market driven through competition there are some things that I wish for the government to have total and complete control, putting the benefits of the citizens first and foremost above all else. In short, a welfare state, where basic human needs are provided and people do not have to fear for their health, their safety etc. Of course I don’t mean a state where sloth flourishes as a way of living since there will be no effort for ‘survival’. What I want is for the water company not look for or care about profit and instead operate in a way that only aims to provide water to the people.

Capitalism is a very complex thing, as is the case with all political tags, ideologies, and schools. So already I’m in breach of someone’s understanding of capitalism, or the welfare state. Those are not the point of today’s piece. Rather what I wish to ask today is this.

“Shouldn’t all capitalists want their customers to have money?”

The answer is an obvious yes but if one were to think about it s/he would see that the actions of the pure-hearted capitalists aren’t exactly in sync with that sentiment. The image they have is of money grabbers and greedy industrialists. It’s similar to what is going on in Europe these past few years with the North/South divide amongst the continent’s countries. We know that Europe is a capitalist area (not being purely capitalist, since that is still only a theoretical entity, and has not been seen in the history of the world yet) and yet we see the capitalist north through the agreements it pushes forth and the deals it makes with the southern, crisis-drowned as it is, is essentially minimizing their purchasing power, it’s taking away their money. What point is there for a big industrialist to operate in a place where there is none to buy his products?

Probably this is the way the North does politics, for some it is evidence of the protestant sentiment coming out, the mentality that you must pay for your “sins”, is the best they can come up with. A lot of people I know actually are treating my frustration as misplaced arguing that “this is how politics work”, advocating a light version or realpolitik, which annoys me to my core. I’ve become very cynical to custom and tradition, to doing things the way we always have done, and this feeling of mine has been carried over on to politics, always getting angry when I notice one just doing politics in a way that is missing the bigger picture, the fact that we are all the same in living in the same planet. I don’t care how new age this sounds like but it is a fact and I feel that people who do not get awestruck by facts like that, who really understand its significance, are the ones capable of committing great humanitarian crimes. I could actually argue that this has been the case so far.

Anarchy at the LSE

So apparently a group of, so-called, “anarchists” swarmed a talk by the mayor of Athens during his visit to the London School of Economics. I read the news about it from a student-operated website, of dubious political affiliation (since “a revolution” is hardly a political position), and unfortunately it is not the first time something like this has taken place in foreign soil, causing nothing but harm to the image of Greeks abroad.

I said “so-called anarchists” for many reasons. In the past, especially in recent time where the economic crisis is what everyone seems to be talking about, I have found myself arguing with people from every point of the political spectrum, from the far right to the far left, to people who have declared apathy of all maters political, and with people who consider themselves “anarchists”. Unfortunately my experience every time I try to talk with someone who is part of a dogmatic position, be it of social nature or of economical nature, I have had trouble understanding their way of thinking for the simple reason that I always realise that these people are actually very ignorant of the significance, implications, and meaning of their own positions.

When it comes to anarchists, especially in Greece, the term has mutated into a feeling of political apathy and rejection. The people who call themselves anarchists simply are “against the government”, identifying it as the enemy and the only source of trouble and pain for the people. This is a far cry from the anarchy of Kropotkin and all the other academic anarchists, who are rarely understood or even read by these “anarchists”. I recently had a discussion with a professor of political philosophy, who called himself an anarchist, and claimed that anarchy is quite simply the ideology in which meritocracy is in no way a means or qualification for power or rule. In the case of my country, anarchism has been partnered with leftist ideology, sometimes even going as far left as communism (which in some sense is completely backwards, since anarchists want no social powerhouse and communism seeks to empower the state as much as possible, albeit under a specific pretext) making it appear as it they are the fighters who are at war for the liberties and rights of the people. The Robin Hoods to the King Johns personified by the government. And it has worked. Their numbers have increased in recent times regardless of the sometimes violent and chaotic actions (such as the one at the LSE) and I believe the reason for that is the faulty image they project which all comes down to their poor understanding of their own ideology.

Even if we ignore this fact, the question remains: what could they hope to achieve with their actions? How different was what they did from the football fans who scream at each other urging strangers to support their team and jeer at their opponents? They probably see their actions as a prequel to some form of social paradigm shift, a watered down version of the social revolution so many great thinkers have written about. In reality though, they miss a very important point. Their approach is actually hindering their own effort. The democracy which rules this country is the only political system that allows for the legitimization of a different ideology become the norm and alter our way of government. That’s how extremist regimes of the near past came to power, through the legitimization by the people by democratic voice. The actions of “anarchists” such as the one at the LSE can do nothing but harm to their cause, assuming of course the people really understand the significance of their ideologies. Unfortunately part of the blame belongs to the government for treating them as opponents and using rhetoric reserved for other situations. This stance by the government absolves them in the eyes of the public, who perceive this stance as “hurting the ruling class where it hurts”, making them think that they are actually succeeding in what they are after.

By ignoring this fact they will never manage to get the majority to join them, since their fight is not supported by all. I am grateful for that, for if they realise that will actually have to argue for their position they will be easily called out as ignorant and unbalanced.

Hardly the traits for someone who wishes to shape the world in any way that might affect others.