Politically Correct – Part 3: So Many Names, So Little Change*
This is a little late because of Labour Day, but here goes.
In Part 1, Fogy discussed the ins and outs of Democracy, before Part 2 explored Communism and Socialism.
Researching this subject more fully, Fogy was inundated with so many terms for types of political structures that he went to sleep with his head thumping and spinning, hardly able to grasp the nature by which simple concepts are made overly complex.
Examples include:
Technocracy, Theocracy, Corporatocracy, Fascism, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Anarchy, Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Plutocracy, Meritocracy, Kleptocracy, Aristocracy, Bureaucracy, Autocracy, Feudalism, Colonialism, Imperialism, Populism, Nationalism, Tribalism, Neoliberalism, Militarism, Progressivism, Conservatism, Libertarianism.
Too many “cys” and “isms” for my taste.
You’ll notice Capitalism is missing — that’s intentional. It’s the subject of a future post.
Anyway, as can be seen by this extensive list, there are too many systems to write individual posts about. I could do that, if you really wanted me to… but I’d rather not die of exhaustion.
So, having compared Democracy to Communism, let’s put some perspective around what’s left.
A great number of these terms have been coined throughout history and describe social experiments in leading sheep and keeping hold of power and wealth — Fogy rant here.
Ultimately, many have either failed or have simply been smoothed out into the few remaining systems we see today. That’s not to say the more extreme ones aren’t being put into practice in some small corners of the world. Man is man, and whatever works for man’s selfish desire is perfect — until it isn’t.
Where do we see success?
Under Democracy, we might want to believe that success can be seen in many English-speaking first world nations.
The problem is that the original concept of Democracy seems to have been lost behind the challenges of giving everybody the liberty to think and decide for themselves. Instead, it’s more about systems being gamed by money, media, and corporate power — while appearing participatory.
Many of these nations have resorted to more autocratic and authoritarian practices, thinly disguised as security measures:
— Homeland Security (US), CCTV (UK), strict immigration and tourist access (many nations).
Communism hasn’t fared much better.
The true nature of Communism practiced in Cuba is constantly under threat by a better educated and well-informed society, while the systems seen in China and North Korea hinge on more authoritarian concepts than the original framework outlined by Marx. It’s worth noting that no state has ever truly implemented Marx's final vision — what we’ve seen are transitional forms often captured by strongmen early on.
If the theme Authoritarian seems to pop up too often here, that’s probably because most senior politicians and theorists can only acknowledge the difficulties in retaining their chosen regime — and how much easier it is to shepherd massive populations by using bully-boy tactics concealed behind populist rhetoric and executive orders.
Can this change? Are there workable alternatives? Are we really interested?
And this may be the only real answer.
We are not particularly skilled at playing the game of politics at the level that defines the regimes of today.
Underlying all of this is global trade and development, which makes policies even harder to challenge.
Total interdependence on our neighbours — ignoring their political foibles — is driving all nations towards tighter control of the population, while giving their people an arena of pseudo-freedom and pleasure linked to consumerism, digital entertainment, and the illusion of choice — that is far from real.
Fogy often looks in dismay at the future we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.
No comments:
Post a Comment