[MD] The MoQ and Politics?

[John Carl]

Greetings, Admin Mary, (!)



 These are true Intellectual level values that are understood
> to be more valuable even than the society in which they exist -  and
> even without benefit of the MoQ they were able to see the dangers
> inherent in the Social level values of authority and celebrity.  But
> they left room for another kind of rot.
>
>
I agree, although I might point out that the founder of the MoQ was formed
by these idea and ideals, so it's not surprising to find this congruence you
point to.

The "other kind of rot" was predicted (somewhat) by a completely different
thinker - Marx.  I don't think Marx is the final word on this conversation,
but I do think he made a good conversation-starter; that there is a genetic
defect in capitalism.

What seems to me to have occurred, is that communism was seen as such an
extreme threat - because of the nuclear threat of Russia during the cold war
- that Capitalism with a big "C" was embraced and enthroned beyond all
reasonableness as a reaction against.  The problem with such "reactions
against" is that they tend to evolve to extremes that are completely
irrational.  Nowaday, there is probably no more capitalistic country in the
world than Russia.  It exhibits a form of laissez-faire robber-baronism that
is unprecedented.  I say "unprecedented" because of the march of
technological/industrial power and thus the ability of those who have power,
to exercise that power in the form of media-mind control.

Now I'm not talking about subliminal programming, or any of that conspiracy
theory bunko, which is entirely beside my point.  I'm talking about the
simple power to influence the voting public against their basic
self-interest.

For instance, there are a heck of a lot more poor people in the world than
rich people.  How come then, tax rates are adjusted so much in favor of the
rich?  Why don't the poor vote in the kind of liberal do-gooders and bring
about the so-called welfare state that is seen in European democracies?
 Simple self-interest would seem to dictate such an obvious and logical
response.  The fact that we don't, seems to point to other factors and I
would posit that those factors are enmeshed with a media-culture which
promotes the self-reliant individual and big business/corporate success.


> At the time of our founding, there were no big oil companies and no
> Goldman-Sachs, no Wal-Mart and no Chinese industrial engine.  In the
> founders favor, I would say there was simply no way to predict just
> how successful Democracy would be; and as I see it, without Democracy,
> none of these would exist today in anything approaching the form we
> see.
>
>
You're right, of course.  And the problems described mean we'll have to look
beyond what our founding fathers foresaw.  At the same time we need a
populace better able to understand and analyze, we find the opposite trend
occuring - with fewer and fewer people able to discuss rationally and
analyze deeply the very structures of our lives.

Houston, we have a problem.

John