This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Politics and Destruction
The history of mankind is dominated by politics. Since the early gathering communities until the present postmodern political environment. All great historical events can be traced back to a series of political decisions, which were either done by the ruling political option or its opposition. While the theoretical view on politics has changed for the past 5000 years, the object of political studies remains the same. The main purpose of this short article is to present the underlying realities of that what is considered political, and also to give a critique of the present state and define its anomalies and irregularities.
Since the beginning of the recent economic crisis many have offered their list of reasons which contributed to the present situation. While the number of those, who say the main culprit can be found in the sphere of financial misconduct and the lack of any risk management, is equal to the number of those who advocate that the main and underlying reason of the recent economic destruction is among those who rule us; we can not disregard the option which clearly states that a combined effort in breaking the regulatory financial framework was due to the efforts of both spheres.
While I do not take sides with the Randian advocates who preach the total separation of Politics and the Economy, i somewhat agree with them that a clear distinction, among what is the domain of Politics and what is the domain of the Economy, needs to be drawn. And I do not state so just to offer some relatively new approach to the whole matter, but as the most pragmatic and utilitarian mean to insure the future sustainability of, both, the Economy and Politics. Now the question arises about the current political-economic environment; has the Economy captured Politics, or has Politics captured the Economy. A good, and well balanced article on that matter was posted here on ZeroHedge, by non other, than our very own Marla Singer.
Allow me to draw a reference of the present political-economic environment with a basic mathematical notion. I do not like when social phenomena is look upon trough the eyes of mathematical laws, and mathematical structures, like many economic schools do, but i find this reference well suited for the point i am trying to make. Lets, for one moment, perform a little thought experiment and look at the Economy and Politics as two sets of values, programs, beliefs and paradigms. If we were to take the whole matter of our little experiment even further we could easily say that the relations between two sets is that they intersect but do not join. While some set elements can belong to both Politics and the Economy, not all set elements belong to both the Economy and Politics. When the two structures are observed that way it is easily seen that the natural state (if there exists one, and if its not only an abstraction) of the relations between Politics and the Economy is somewhat defined as the intersection of their values, programs, beliefs and paradigms. Also, the orthodox teachings of Ayn Rand concerning this subject will not, in any way, facilitate the long term sustainability of both structures.
The question of why is that so is not easy to answer without taking into regards some basic philosophic teachings on the natural condition of human kind. If the system is to be structured such that the Economy becomes independent of Politics, and Politics becomes independent the Economy we need to rest assured that the underlying nature of the human factor is rational. Modern Game Theory accepts that the underlying nature of the human factor is rational, and thus builds it program around that belief. But if we were to examine the path which those who advocate the usage of Game Theory took to come to such a conclusion, we would find some troublesome argumentation techniques. So for example, the main argumentation structure which defends the rational nature of the human factor is historical observation. Meaning, the arguments in favor of Game Theory are drawn in a Hegelian nature by observing historical phenomena and ascribing to them the rational conditions. But such an obvious fallacy can easily be refuted by offering a contra-argument in the form of point out all the monstrosities which were done throughout the history of mankind. While we did not take our argumentative grounds any further from historicism we have defeated the pro-rational argumentation using its own methods. Much was discussed on this topic throughout the 20th century by such established figures as Karl Popper and Jurgen Habermas. Therefore I will not spend much more time on this. If you want to read the material concerning the topic briefly discussed in this paragraph you can find the necessary literature on the web.
As you can see for yourself the word contained in the title of this article is Destruction. You have seen the social and the economic destruction in the past two years, and various other types of destruction which have followed the rise of the Man as the measure of all things. While the span of consequences brought on us by our political and economic leaders is global, it was not so in the past. One only needs to look back 200 years and observe the political-economic state in Europe,in the second part of 1700s. That era is marked by the large speculation in the companies which were called South Sea Company, Mississippi Company. The formation and subsequent speculation was done under the regulative of the royal cast which was then a predominant form of ruling cast. Subsequent crash and depletion of the royal treasuries of France, the UK and Netherlands was one one the main reasons of the subsequent late 18th century and early 19th century European Revolutions.
The following question is also important to be asked; from where or from whom is the power granted to those who rule. While there doesn't exist only one answer to those questions, some generalized categories can be formulated. From the beginnings of political structuring up until the French and the American revolution, a belief was strongly held that the "Power to Rule" is granted to the ruler by God. Such metaphysical explanation of the "Power to Rule" automatically gave to those who ruled the option to justify their deeds and policies upon the notion of Gods existence. As the living conditions of the general populace were becoming unbearable due to the autocratic form of governance; opposite political options emerged and captured the Zeitgeist of those who have suffered. The subsequent results of such emerging oppositions are secularization of The Church and The State, democratic process, social benefits etc.
As we are getting closer to the end of this article we find that it is important to analyze the current trends which we are witnessing. One of those trends is the process of globalization, which has its roots in two philosophical doctrines. The first philosophical doctrine which strongly influenced globalization is the political philosophy of a German philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant presented us with this political doctrine in his political essay which is titled "Perpetual Peace". I do not wish to go into dept in exposing this doctrine, but a belief in a global governance body, as well as in global institutions streams directly from the political teachings if Immanuel Kant. The second doctrine, with which you might be more familiar with, is relatively new. The doctrine of "Open Society" first exhibited in the political writings of the German philosopher Karl Popper. In his "Open Society" doctrine Popper proposes a geo-political system of national unification. You can witness such a system today by observing the main paradigmatic doctrines of the European Union. Of course the supra-national structure does not have to be confined just to the realm of the Political, but can, and is, spread among those who propose a global financial unification. Popper also proposes that all geographical borders need to disappear in order to facilitate the spatial population dynamics. While, by itself, that view is not orthodox in any way it necessitates that the sovereignty of nations needs to be sacrificed, all legal and economical systems, no matter how culturally and historically they may be different, be subdued to the idea of unity and general equality.
In conclusion, it is easily to predict the future trends in both the Sphere of the Political and the Sphere of the Economy. While the opposition to those kinds of movements grows more stronger each passing day, all sides of the political sphere stand united in supporting and working in favor of the program described in this article. The belief that sovereignty is the main culprit in the history of warfare and that cultural differences are not beneficial for Peace, both the Political and the Economic structures will work hard in unifying the Globe under one umbrella of Artificial Identity. While I personally do not believe that their motives are in any way pointed towards benefiting the general populace, but are pointed towards their own personal benefit and strengthening the power grip which they hold.
It will come as no surprise if we see a global currency in the next 5 years, or a formation of political and economic unions which will mirror the European Union. With strong social programs and centralized form of governing, dominated by global institutions with their programs the world will stand ideologically united. But as we know no human or any action can stop the flow of history, or change the underlying inner dynamics of that what we perceive as historical. It can only dress it in the the cloth of artificiality and sustain it as long as possible. But as we know; on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone, and anything, drops to zero.
Thank you for reading.
»
- advertisements -
I think the internet is the wild card in how the global ideological glue plays out. Historically, it is the most powerful tool ever invented to counteract political and economic structures built upon geography or economic interest for the ultimate binding force is ideology and nothing more and given the unlimited entry and exit points for information, it is a profound competitor in effecting the human condition. Look at this site.
I agree.
But also beware:
Are We Winning the Battle on the Web? Or Are We Just Letting Off eSteam?George.
Brilliant article on your blog. If you allow me, I would suggest you post it here on ZH, if for nothing else, then just to offer some new perspective on the whole matter.
True, except it is not. For one, the Internet does not enable for any physical movement of individuals or goods. It is an Artificial Space in which a possibility of a physical movement can arise. Also, if the government does monitor the information flow, it is fairly easy to stop a transition from a possibility of movement to an actual action. While i do agree with you that it does facilitate the exchange of information, it is, still, incapable to be a strong mean of forming any nationwide grass root movement, or in the most extreme sense, for a revolution. Again, i don't know, i only offer my opinion. The future will tell if i am wrong or not, but by judging it only on the present state of the matters, i have little to no hope.
The Ron Paul Presidential campaign was pretty impressive. I believe his "Revolution of Ideas" is still quite viable as well. I've heard but can't say with certainty that it it takes a fairly small percentage of motivated people to run a "revolution", I've heard that the American revolution was waged with about a 3% "buy-in".
Perhaps facilitating inaction (and disbelief) is just as powerful as facilitating action (and faith)
Like "insider holding." The changing of one's mind about selling some stocks based on secret privileged information. How nefarious!
and like you said Cheeky, in historical terms and timelines, it's a little early to assess the power and role of the internet
Cheeky / Another "thought provoking" post. This indeed is a key question: "...from where or from whom is the power granted to those who rule?" In America, unfortunately, the democracy has relinquished its' power granted. The question that will challenge this current generation and the many to follow, is how does it retrieve the power it granted? Internally, we believe it may only be through a total collapse of the system by "those who rule" who have misled and thus deceived, those in the democracy.
This is a damn good essay.
Thank you cheeky.
"almost all politics is about who gets the money"
Huge bloc emerging in Asia: "That would give membership to Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, plus the Asean countries – Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, Burma, Brunei, Cambodia and Laos."
Japanese PM pushes for East Asian union
By Kevin Brown in Hua Hin, Thailand
Published: October 24 2009
Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9509ca4-c09c-11de-8f4a-00144feab49a.html
This is a development that would reshape the world.
New order takes shape in East -UK Telegraph
China, Japan and South Korea have vowed to push ahead with plans for a new union that would reduce their economic dependency on the West. How the numbers stack up:
2nd & 3rd Japan and China’s position in the list of leading world economies. Economists believe China could surpass Japan by the end of the year. $266.4bn
Value of trade between China and Japan in 2008, a 12.5pc rise over 2007. 21.4pc
1st & 2nd China and Japan’s position in the list of the world’s biggest holders of foreign reserves. 16pc
The proportion of the gobal economy accounted for in the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Japan, China and South Korea. 30pc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/6292327/New-order-take...