[Peace-discuss] Re: Democracy or Oligarchy?

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

>Paul,
>
>This is a great article with a very important message. It's so
>easy to succumb to what I call "real world" propaganda (i.e.,
>Charles Beard's economic interpretation of the consitution as
>discussed below; or, as I've heard so often in my past, "It's
>time to get a /real/ job in the /real/ world, young man", etc.).
>
>Howard Zinn talks repeatedly about "leveling" in his book 'A
>People's History of the US'. It strikes me that we have not
>had a redistribution of wealth in a very long time. (Anyone
>care to comment on when? Does the New Deal count?) We are
>definitely long overdue. The thing is, as we become more
>technologically advanced, leveling gets more dangerous and
>destructive for society at large. 

Paul-
Thanks for your interesting comments on the article I posted.
It seems to me that technological progress makes economic
leveling much more important.  Inequitable access to a
powerful technology gives those who are already wealthier an
even greater advantage.   The digital divide is an example. 
Without greater economic equality things could get much worse
in the future.  Suppose, for example, that a technology to
extend the human life span is developed.  Unless such a
technology were made equitably available through a national
healthcare system, we might be faced with a world where poorer
people lived only 70 years, and the rich lived 150 years or
more.  The rich could continue to accumulate additional wealth
over their extended lifespan.

Nevertheless, as a natural
>and cyclical social phenomenon, it cannot be avoided. Where
>that leaves us is a disturbing question that becomes more
>terrifying as time passes.
>
>I interpret this article as an enlightened case of leveling.
>The founding fathers acted against their own immediate
>interests in order to contain and distribute the wealth of
>the new nation. Perhaps in that time and place the threat of
>leveling was a much more salient possibility than it is today,
>particularly since they still had blood on their hands from
>the war that severed our ties to Britain. They knew leveling
>was a dangerous and murderous enterprise. Perhaps they were
>seeking to create a society where it would no longer be
necessary.

Social revolutions don't necessarily need to be murderous
enterprises.  The fall of the Soviet bloc was accomplished
through a largely non-violent revolution, as was end of
apartheid in South Africa, and the recent revolution against a
fraudulent election in Ukraine.  I just finished reading an
excellent book by Johnathan Schell, "The Unconquerable World"
that argues that non-violent action is becoming an
increasingly potent force for change in the modern world.  A
major redistribution of wealth through peaceful means might be
possible, if enough Americans were convinced that they really
wanted it.

>
>Question. The Constitutional Convention was held in secret
>behind locked doors and James Madison did not publish his
>notes of the Convention until 1840, just after the last of the
>other participants had died. What does this mean as far as the
>compatibility of leveling and democracy goes? Furthermore, it
>seems as though our founding fathers attempted to proscribe a
>democratic order on the new nation from above in much the same
>way that the current administration claims it is doing in
>Iraq. 

I don't think that this is a good comparison at all.  The
American Revolution was initiated by Americans, for Americans,
not by an invading foreign power.  The constitutional
convention was but one part in a broader process.  The Schell
book mentions that one of the American founders, I think John
Adams, said that the revolution took place in the minds of
men, and the war came only afterwards.  The removal of Saddam
Hussein was not the consequence of a revolution in the minds
of the Iraqis, it was a consequence of unwanted foreign
meddling.  Why do you worry that democracy and economic
leveling might be incompatible?  Democracy is based on
majority rule.  The majority of Americans are middle income or
poor.  The rich are a minority.  All that is really necessary
is to educate the American people to support policies that are
in their own self interest.

>A very good criticism of this foreign policy is that
>democracy cannot be administered from above, but must bubble
>up from below. Where does that leave us? Where, exactly, was
>this supposed "democracy" that we inherited and are now losing?
>
>The world has been under the seige of various imperial
>economies for several thousands of years now. Is it really
>possible for democracy to coexist within or next to such a
>beast? Or is democracy an indigenous managerial relic from
>ancient times that predated the age of empires? If so, is it a
>useful ideal or are we distracted?

Democracy has been a rising force for more than two centuries.
 It remains to be seen whether capitalism and imperialism, on
the one hand, or democracy, on the other, will win out in the end.
-Paul Patton
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
spring semster 2005
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Biology, Williams College
Williamstown, MA
phone: (413)-597-3518

Research Scientist
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-344-5812
homepage: http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ppatton/www/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________