Hi All:
I'm catching up on my reading in this thread and would like to offer my
opinion regarding the recent Ed W and Brad exchanges. Particularly Ed W's
following...........
"I don't think fascism or any other of the traditional "isms" is a
possibility, at least not for a time. Both fascism and communism placed the
interests of the state above those of the individual, while capitalism
places private interests above public interests. What I see coming is a
somewhat anarchic situation in which large blocks are battling each other
for primacy and domination of what remains of public space. For the most
part, this battle proceeds behind the scenes and goes unnoticed, but every
once in a while, when the time is ripe, it flares up into something quite
violent, as it already has in Seattle, Washington, and Prague, now will
shortly again in Quebec City.
What I find most difficult to understand is who these blocks are and what
they purport to represent. On the one side you have increasingly
internationalized capital aligned with people who genuinely believe in the
benefits of freer trade. On the other side you have, at least here in
Canada, what remains of the democratic left seemingly aligned with
anarchists and other people who seem bent on blowing things up. Caught in
the middle, and in a terrible muddle, is government, trying to appease all
sides, but at the same time putting up three meter fences and sending in
very large contingents of cops. What makes government seem so irrelevant
is that the lead appears to have been taken away from it. None of the
serious protagonists believe that governments can get it right or do very
much about the situation.
My personal take on it is that we should expect to live with something that
just barely escapes being chaos for some time.
========================
The noted historian Eric Hobsbalm in his book, "The Twentieth Century
explains that the treat to democracy has come from the right, not the left.
"It may be worth reminding ourselves that in this period (1933 - 1944) the
threat to liberal institutions came exclusively from the political right,
for between 1945 and 1989 it was assumed, almost as a matter of course,
that it came from communism. Until then the term �totalitarianism�,
originally invented as a description or self-description of Italian
Fascism, was applied only to such regimes".
"The fear of social revolution and the communists� role in it, was
realistic enough, as the second wave of revolution during and after the
Second World war proved, but in the twenty years of liberal retreat not a
single regime that could be reasonably called liberal-democratic had been
overthrown by the left" Pp112 Age Of Extremes by Eric Hobsbawm
Regarding the image of "terrorists against capitalism" that has been
portrayed in the mass (read propaganda) media, a recent panel on TV with
the editors of the major mass media arrayed against spokespersons for the
"terorists" was able to clearly expose the very biased editorial and
reporting stance of the mass media. The editors could not answer the
questions posed. Seattle etc., was only reported for the purpose that
"violence sell advertising."
A major question was asked of the many "terrorists" and that was, "how many
of you are against trade per se?"
There was not a single hand raised!
I recently had occasion to see the constitution of a political party and
realised that political partys have perpetrated a hoax on the electorate.
Supported by the media, the political parties propaganda model is that "we
vote for and elect people to government." That is not democracy!
Democracy is when the people elect to congress, or the commons, those whose
task is to "permit" through legislation the "rulers" to Act, constrained by
limitations written into the legislation (and budgeted) by which we "govern
ourselves"
In Canada at least, we are conveting increasinly to the US model, without
the constitutional constraints of separation of powers.
The result is that, with the assist of the media, we elect a leader (PM),
with a team (Cabinet) and supporting members of a "governing party" that
inclusively becomes the "ruler" of Canada, authorised to impose an agenda
untill the next election, sans meaningful opposition.
Truly the business of government has become complex, and will continue to
be even more so. The reasion is because there is an absence of conservative
philosophy to contain the individual and associated liberal interest groups
that compete for an increasing share of "rights" The dominant interest
group being the mega-conglomerated corporations that have, since the since
1800's morphed into tax and regulation evading bemoths, powerful enough to
dictate to elected governments.
Our elected representatioves have to be brought under control. If democracy
stops once a person is elected, then that person and his/her pears are out
of control. The only way to control them is to obtain leadership within the
community that will speak with credibility on behalf of the consesnsus of
the community. That community being those who are reasonably well and
sufficiently well informed to support and guide the elected representative
in the discharge of his/her duties.
I look forward to reading the balabce of the thread.
Kindest Regards
Ed G
==================
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Authentication-Warning: scribe.uwaterloo.ca: majordomo set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is government becoming irrelevant?
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 09:24:44 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit my rebuilt website at:
http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
> Ed Weick wrote:
> >
> > Keith Hudson:
> >
> > > Coming to the basic issue, however, modern society is becoming far too
> > > complex to be governed by the simplistic process of
one-person-one-vote.
> [snip]
SNIPPED
