- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 46,517
- Reaction score
- 22,699
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The history of the human race is largely one of hierarchical societies. From the most primitive groups of tribes with a leader and most hunting and gathering to support the tribe through every variation of that - kings, sultans, pharaohs, emperors, presidents, prime ministers, dictators, Supreme Leaders, Party Chairmen, billionaires, tycoons, and whatever other form it took - you see human history shaped by the agendas of hierarchical structures.
So instead of 'world peace' and mankind cooperating for mutual benefit, instead of the chaos of anarchy, instead of the other options for human society, you see a history of hierarchical organizations pursuing the interests of their leaders, building and warring, with the masses of people working for that leader and purpose.
In our human history, arguably the most powerful single idea that has affected this structure of society is the one of democracy, of the people having more power. It's always been a pressure, a trend, slowly over millennia. Even absolute monarchs from Roman emperors to European kings had limits on their power over people - and were sometimes even killed by them. But democracy is the idea that created a system for more power for the masses, rather than just the threat of rebellion.
The reason human history is dominated by hierarchical societies is that they are an extremely powerful way to organize society. Humans naturally form into suck societies, as we see in businesses and nearly any other organization - and even democracies are almost always a form of a hierarchical society, but simply one where the people have more power over the leaders. But having chosen leaders, it's back to the leaders setting the agenda, taxing and spending and warring.
The ideal of democracy is represented by free individuals each having a say in choosing leaders, and in doing so choosing policies. While no system is utopia, is made of benevolent people only trying to do the right thing, democracy has remarkable benefits in shifting policies from what they are under rulers who are not subject to elections.
But a very important fact is that a democratic system does not remove the same pressures that exist in any system: the pressures of inequality to have a few get more power over the many. The system of democracy - one vote per person - is designed to counter that, but the pressure remains to undermine, to overcome, democracy in every other way. And, critically, it largely succeeds.
In the ideal, the billionaire would have one vote like everyone else, his or her money useless in politics. They could go to the voting booth, tell the poll worker they are a billionaire, and be told 'that's nice. Here's your ballot'.
In practice, that is not the case. Billionaires enjoy very unequal power in many ways, and they tend to want to do so in politics as much as possible. And the obvious way to do so is to make their advantage over others matter: make money matter in politics.
California politician Jesse Unruh said, "Money is the mother's milk of politics". Not a saying that fits the ideal of democracy. But it very well fits the pressures for a hierarchical system.
In especially bad democracy, you can start to compare the vote to the pretend steering wheel given to a child, so they can be pacified by being kept busy feeling like they are getting to steer, while they actual driver determines where the car goes. The voter is encouraged to 'feel powerful' by voting, while their vote has little effect and the people with power decide the policies.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis recognized this permanent hierarchical pressure when he said, you can have great concentration of wealth, or you can have democracy, but you cannot have both.
The purpose of democracy is to defeat the hierarchical tyranny of greatly concentrated wealth, when the people have to serve the interests of the rules who has the wealth; the purpose of great fortunes is to enjoy that very hierarchical tyranny, which requires defeating democracy if it rears its ugly head.
Let's look at some ways great fortunes wage war on democracy.
So instead of 'world peace' and mankind cooperating for mutual benefit, instead of the chaos of anarchy, instead of the other options for human society, you see a history of hierarchical organizations pursuing the interests of their leaders, building and warring, with the masses of people working for that leader and purpose.
In our human history, arguably the most powerful single idea that has affected this structure of society is the one of democracy, of the people having more power. It's always been a pressure, a trend, slowly over millennia. Even absolute monarchs from Roman emperors to European kings had limits on their power over people - and were sometimes even killed by them. But democracy is the idea that created a system for more power for the masses, rather than just the threat of rebellion.
The reason human history is dominated by hierarchical societies is that they are an extremely powerful way to organize society. Humans naturally form into suck societies, as we see in businesses and nearly any other organization - and even democracies are almost always a form of a hierarchical society, but simply one where the people have more power over the leaders. But having chosen leaders, it's back to the leaders setting the agenda, taxing and spending and warring.
The ideal of democracy is represented by free individuals each having a say in choosing leaders, and in doing so choosing policies. While no system is utopia, is made of benevolent people only trying to do the right thing, democracy has remarkable benefits in shifting policies from what they are under rulers who are not subject to elections.
But a very important fact is that a democratic system does not remove the same pressures that exist in any system: the pressures of inequality to have a few get more power over the many. The system of democracy - one vote per person - is designed to counter that, but the pressure remains to undermine, to overcome, democracy in every other way. And, critically, it largely succeeds.
In the ideal, the billionaire would have one vote like everyone else, his or her money useless in politics. They could go to the voting booth, tell the poll worker they are a billionaire, and be told 'that's nice. Here's your ballot'.
In practice, that is not the case. Billionaires enjoy very unequal power in many ways, and they tend to want to do so in politics as much as possible. And the obvious way to do so is to make their advantage over others matter: make money matter in politics.
California politician Jesse Unruh said, "Money is the mother's milk of politics". Not a saying that fits the ideal of democracy. But it very well fits the pressures for a hierarchical system.
In especially bad democracy, you can start to compare the vote to the pretend steering wheel given to a child, so they can be pacified by being kept busy feeling like they are getting to steer, while they actual driver determines where the car goes. The voter is encouraged to 'feel powerful' by voting, while their vote has little effect and the people with power decide the policies.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis recognized this permanent hierarchical pressure when he said, you can have great concentration of wealth, or you can have democracy, but you cannot have both.
The purpose of democracy is to defeat the hierarchical tyranny of greatly concentrated wealth, when the people have to serve the interests of the rules who has the wealth; the purpose of great fortunes is to enjoy that very hierarchical tyranny, which requires defeating democracy if it rears its ugly head.
Let's look at some ways great fortunes wage war on democracy.