This is largely a response to Dan’s last entry, but also filled with a lot of my rumination on the state of our society as a whole.
The biggest problem in a capitalistic society is that there is a huge emphasis on money. (Obviously.) Being able to make a lot of money or to hold a lot of money is unconsciously held as one of our highest virtues. People I talk to know that I rag about this, but it’s very telling that the American Dream consists of working your way into suburbia (house, spouse, two and a half kids) after getting a reasonable amount of income. In order to have influence and fame in society, you need money. In order to become a politician, you need money. Exposure, endorsements, campaigning all takes money. So what we have is that all of society’s influential leaders come from wealthy backgrounds, and their decisions tend to benefit the wealthy. (Hi Bush.) This becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
Which is not to say that industry and hard work, a key component of the American Dream, is a bad thing. There’s something to be said about the pride of individuality, but often industry walks hand in hand with selling yourself into an office job, or a blue-collar heavy labor job, or something that you equally hate. Virtues such as creativity aren’t valued and rewarded the same way that wealth is. On one hand, this is good. It ensures that creativity is almost always genuine, because there isn’t profit in being a charlatan. Nobody will want to “pretend” to be creative because it isn’t as profitable as going into business (and cheat people of money there). On the other hand, this leads to huge numbers of children being told as they’re growing up to “be a doctor or a lawyer”, because making a lot of money really is more important to people than creavitity.
The current education system compounds this problem. Instead of encouraging an individualistic approach, i.e. because different people learn in different ways there should be multiple approaches to teaching students, we have a highly deterministic and rigid system where performing well on testing ensures your future. Art and music and dance are, with the exception of art schools, always the lowest priority in school curriculums. Hence, those talents are never developed within the system (note how every artist always discover their talent doodling at home or singing a song on the radio) and only those talents valuable to mass industry are rewarded.
This is not surprising, seeing how public schooling was created largely because of the manufacturing industry, but it is nevertheless problematic.
State socialism will not work. A system where the state owns everything stands very closely to oligarchy, and in turn, a dictatorship. The state is too prone to corruption, and as we saw with Russia, will inevitably choose to serve themselves. State socialism is doomed to fail just as much as dictatorships will.
So is central organization the problem? Perhaps. We have seen small anarchist societies work in the past, but this is because of strong interpersonal ties and community. This dynamic may not scale well to large society, nor is it necessarily desirable. There is no historical example of anarchism working well for nations, and for it to legitimately work would require a vast unlearning of key human tenets (abandoning ownership and embracing sharing, for one) and new systems to support that type of thinking. Learning to accept sharing over personal ownership is no less impossible or contrary to human nature as is our mutual agreement to wear clothes or choose not to smoke (there will always be outliers and exceptions), but for the moment it is so impractical and far off in the future that this would not and should not be the society we should build. Perhaps one day, when enough transitional periods have gone by that we think differently, act differently, then this should be reconsidered.
We have seen limited forms of anarchy at work. The internet, in particular communities such as Youtube, caught our existing governments (along with the rest of the world) so off guard that they never acted to prevent it. Think about it. The internet is decentralized. Anyone can make and upload a youtube video, anyone can make a web page. Wealth barely figures into the equation other than some basic technological costs. On the web, anonymity means that you are judged by what you say and not what you are. You are judged by content, and you can be judged by anyone. There are various forms of organization (google and so forth) but they arose through the system and the reason they are dominant is because they do better. Again, judged by merit. If one day a better search engine comes along, there is little that Google can do to stay on top.
So at the very least, creativity and the social aspects of our society are best done through a fluid and organic manner, where no one is judged by anything but what they provide. All content is freely available to everyone, and in cases where it isn’t (music copyrights), there is an automatic resistance.
On the side of the economy, a limited form of capitalism isn’t a big deal. The problem is when capitalism gains political and social power (bombardment of advertisement, lobbying, etc). Branding and commercialism and mass production are here to say, whether we like it or not, but as long as it is kept in moderation, it’s fine. This means guarding against monopolies, as we already do, treating large companies more harshly than small businesses, meaning less tax cuts for big companies etc, and the elimination of lobbying and any measure of corporate support to the political arena. Advertising should definitely be scaled back from what we have today – perhaps for tv commercials to only play between shows, such that people can easily choose to avoid them if they wish, or we can utilize technological controls. Internet ads can, through firefox extensions, be completely blocked out by users who choose to, and this is an approach that should be examined as a potential model.
The problem with “anarchy” as a whole is that it doesn’t apply to all aspects of our society. There needs to be a central government, at our point in time, if only to ensure rights are being upheld and to enforce regulations. Courts need to stay. Various regulatory institutions, such as the FDA, need to continue to exist to protect the consumer against companies. In terms of RIGHTS and SAFETY, the government needs to still be in play.
This may sound somewhat like the “small government” approach, and you may wonder why, then, I don’t support the conservative party as much as I “should”. The main issue is that the conservative party is at the moment heavily influenced by corporate power (Bush’s tax cuts, etc) and also because they’re too trigger happy with foreign affairs. Government should never, ever, ever be involved with corporations and should only serve as a regulatory agent over them.
I will also note that the current so-called conservative party does not hold most of the same ideological positions that the founding conservatives did.
So..
yeah.