Plutophobia
18-03-2005, 09:01
(Note: If this idea has already been thought of before and you know of its name, please let me know. I did some searching and wasn't able to find it. Although I don't doubt the strong possibility that it's been thought of before. Anyway, here goes.)
Introduction
I've been trying to think about what the ideal government is, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no government which is not destined to fail. I call this political philosophy Mortalism, because it is based on the sound principle that there is an unfortunate limit to human understanding and as a result, every government that exists will eventually either be overthrown or through advanced technology kill off its entire population. In other words, it accepts that all governments are mortal.
The following is a series of rough drafts of philosophical essays I've written, proving how each government will eventually destroy itself, because of a certain economic system, and why. In my second drafts, I will include more historical examples and further explanation. For now, though, this is mostly logical reasoning, with a fair knowledge of psychology and how systems of government work.
The reason each government will fail is because of inherent selfishness in humanity, reflected in the economy which influences the government. In psychology, it's taught that our brains are driven towards pleasure and away from pain, towards what we desire and away from what we don't desire. This is a basic principle of Buddhism and it's further affirmed even by western proverbs, such as "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The greater amount of power a person has, the greater extent at which they can exercise their selfishness. In modern Democracies, there needs to be a system of checks and balances, where the selfishness of two different groups cancel eachother out, to prevent any one group from assuming absolute power and becoming corrupted, no different than a monarch would. So, essentially, although we can overcome it, all human beings are naturally wired to be hedonistic.
As I said, our governments will fall as a result of the economy having an impact on politics, regardless of the type of government. There are basically four main economic styles: Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and Anarchy. The last one could be interpreted as a form of Capitalism, Communism, or neither, and, in a way, either could be true, but proponents of Anarchy often argue the same points I am about to describe, when it comes to the flaws of both Capitalism and Communism in forms of government. So, for purposes of simplicity, I've kept it separate.
What I've previously stated, on Mortalism, sounds grim, as if there is actually no hope for humanity. This isn't actually true, as there are a few rare, but possible, scenarios where a government could exist theoretically stable, but they are so improbable that it's reasonable to accept that they will not happen. I'll explain the possibilities that might save us in the last essay. But even if the future is bleak, Mortalism does not completely accept futility. Instead, it stresses that instead of trying to find the ideal government and ignoring one political construct because of flaws, we should instead find which forms of government last the longest and what methods need to be taken to sustain them, even if the end is inevitable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism
A great deal of people in North America and eastern Europe tend to believe that capitalism is the strongest and most effective form of government. While I cannot deny their claims, my intent is not disprove this, but rather, to prove that, just like Communism, it will inevitably fail, although it seems to be more prominent and has lasted much longer.
The problem with capitalism is that it encourages class conflict. As someone once told me, "If you redistributed everyone's wealth equally in a capitalist country, within a matter of weeks, there'd be the haves and have-nots." Through great tragedy and a series of events after World War II, the middleclass exploded. However, as I'll explain, Capitalism has the tendency to push the depths of both wealth and poverty to greater extremes, until you have two classes, practically identical to past dictatorships. And that is the problem: class conflict. When capitalist governments become democratic aristocracies, the aristocrats look out for the benefit of those within their group, not the entire population.
In the beginnings of a democracy, whether direct or indirect, the people vote for political candidates. But the candidates voted into office are not fully representative of the entire population, but rather, they are fully representative of the majority of the population that voted for them. This utilitarian approach already creates an aristocracy. The "ruling class" of a democracy is the group which the majority favors. If a country is more than 50% white but almost 100% of their politicians are white (because majority almost always wins), then the "ruling class" are the white politicians. Yes, in a civilized society, they will not discriminate against others, based on anything but personal character. However, it has never been in the nature of mankind to be inherently tolerant, empathetic, or understanding.
Every culture which exists has racism and even those who are not profoundly racist, do base many of their beliefs on ignorant stereotypes and generalizations. Psychology's concepts of "categorical processing" and "availability heuristics", further affirm this principle. This is also one reason why modern governments require so many laws against discrimination. Every social group, whether it's as large as a government or as small as a high school, will have discrimination based upon whomever the majority most admires or has the greatest amount of power. And, once given that power, politicians who are favored by the majority, like high school jocks, cheerleaders, or any popular people in high school, will use that power to discriminate against others. This unfortunate aristocracy always leads to discrimination.
However, it is an extremely slow process. A balanced democracy does not become a fascist plutocracy overnight. This is because those with power are obligated to give people the appearance of being neutral, objective, and that they are looking out for everyone's needs, not just their own and their constituents. Depending on the level of corruption within a government, a large number of politicians may actually sincerely believe they're doing this. However, historically, political bodies always pander to the groups which put them in office. Currently, in America, Republicans are mostly voted for by upperclass, white, Christians. So, enforcing morality and removing restrictions on big business are on the agenda, while social welfare and equality generally is not. On the other hand, Democrats recieve a great deal of the minority vote and votes from the middle class. As a result, emphasizing the importance of civil rights, protecting the working class from big business, and social welfare are on the agenda, whereas protecting the rights of big business or promoting religious values are not. As you can clearly see, their policies are based around those that vote for them. This is what makes the transition to an aristocracy so slow: the necessity to somewhat pander to your constituents, whether sincere or not.
It is undeniable that democratic capitalist countries eventually become aristocracies, though, not only because of the utilitarian approach to voting, but also because politicians are not chosen based on their wisdom and competence, but rather, on the appearance of wisdom and competence. Yale's Method of Persuasion taught that the most important thing in a speech, in order to persuade someone, is not strong, logical reasoning, but rather, the ability to distract your audience, the appearance of credibility (youthfulness, beauty, etc), certain styles of arguments, and manipulating emotions. Greater financial resources allow people to utilize these psychological tools with greater effectiveness and scope. And even if laws are passed which give every politician equal amounts of campaign finances or put a cap on them, there will still undoubtedly be illegal, under-the-table finances or money secretly given to supposedly "independent" groups, in order to spread lies, through whisper campaigns, smear campaigns, and any other methods of dirty politics. (Karl Rove once defeated a political opponent by bugging his own office and claiming his opponent was responsible. When the FBI removed the bug, they discovered that the bug had an extremely limited range, the battery had a life of about 8 hours and when they examined it, tests showed that a fresh battery had been put in the device only about 20 minutes before they originally got there. This is just one example of dirty politics which can be achieved, even with limits on campaign finances.) Fixed elections are also the consequence of this corrupting aristocracy.
And so, in conclusion, democratic capitalism may be the slowest decaying form of government, but it is mortal. Utilitarian-based voting, whether direct or indirect, creates a ruling class. Disproportionate amounts of wealth contribute to this ruling class. Once the ruling class has assumed power, it slowly creates more benefits for their own group, while taking away the benefits of outsiders. Thus, in capitalism, the upperclass and lowerclass always travel away from eachother at two extreme sides of the financial spectrum. Immense poverty will certainly lead to an uprising. But even if this does not happen, once a democratic capitalist country allows this, it is no longer a democracy, but a fascist oligarchy under the guise of a democracy (as was the case with Saddam Hussein's reign of power, in Iraq).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Communism
It is commonly accepted in America and most of Europe that Communism will always fail, because of how most Communist governments, so far, have collapsed. It must be clear, however, that Communism is the same as Capitalism, in that they are both mortal, and both can collapse easily, under certain conditions. Many Communists argue that the majority of Communist nations were not really Communists, but rather, that they were people who advocated Stalinism. In other words, they often denied the absolute necessity of a Communist revolution and they somewhat incorporated capitalism into their economy. As a result, it was not true Communism, but rather, a perverted version of it. There was a corrupt bureaucracy, which attained large amounts of wealth, being envious of western, capitalist nations, and they exploited the poor. Some say China is like this today: a country which appears Communist, but is actually more Stalinist (which could be considered Communist, depending on who you ask). Communists say this is not the goal of Communism. Instead, the goal of Communism is just like Capitalism: a Democracy which fully represents the people. And truly, if their election system were identical to America's, I can't see why they would collapse as quickly as they did in the past.
But regardless, even though there are numerous factors which could speed up or slow down the fall of a Communist nation, there are clear reasons why it will obviously fail, eventually. First of all, there is no incentive. It is natural of all human beings to desire things, especially things which they see. Communism in Europe partially collapsed because it was envious of western prosperity and freedom, while their governments had to oppress them to maintain control and poverty rates were unacceptably high. It is possible that, if there were ever a global Communist Revolution, that Communism might be a lot more successful than it has been. Removing jealousy of foreign nations with greater civil rights and enviably prosperous middleclass and upperclass citizens, would be a way to get people to agree with Communism, as a form of government. That's the one major problem: People just simply don't agree. Many people wanted to escape Communist Europe, but the goverment, fearing even more damage to its economy, kept its citizens imprisoned within their own country.
But even so, I don't believe that even a Communist Revolution would sustain any Communist government, indefinately. As stated in the introduction, mankind has the natural tendency towards Hedonism, not selflessness. This natural tendency towards Hedonism may be as a result of being born into a Hedonistic world, so, growing up a Communist world may prevent it. However, even with a Communist Revolution, the potential for envy of capitalism still exists, because of the past. Memories and evidence of previously prosperous people under Capitalist countries would still be a way for people to desire what they don't have. It would be enormously difficult to spread Communism by means other than violent conflict, and even more difficult to convince a person raised with capitalism to give up feelings of individualism and self-gain, So, even with a Communist Revolution, they would literally have to invade every non-Communist country in the world, destroy all past relics and archaelogical evidence of Capitalism's prosperous groups, and oppress all of those who dissent, because they remember the truth. This is so ridiculously impossible that a Communist Revolution is just not practical, either trying to support it, or the benefits once it's carried out. You can distort history, but you cannot re-write huge portions of it. Any form of Communism has to oppress its people, as a result of this envy. Just like Capitalism's class-conflict, this oppression leads to rebellion. As Chapter 72 of the Tao Te Ching says, "When people no longer fear force, they bring about greater force. Do not limit their place. Do not reject their livelihood. Because the ruler does not reject them, therefore they do not reject the ruler."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism
Socialism is really just a form of regulated Capitalism. If you define Socialism as a government which fully controls all industries, then many countries today which call themselves Socialist, are not. If you define Socialism as a government which controls some industries, then every non-anarchist capitalist country is somewhat Socialist, in nature. For this reason, it would be ignorant of someone to criticize a country such as Canada for being moderately Socialist (or claim Socialism has killed thousands of people), while ignoring the fact that all capitalist countries control or direct the economy and its industries, in one form or another. In other words, all non-anarchist capitalist countries are more or less Socialist in nature. Having an abundance of Socialist laws makes us consider them "Socialist." But having some laws based on Socialist principles automatically makes us totally devoid of Socialism's influence, and gives us a truly free market economy? Definitely not.
Only in Anarchy is there pure capitalism or a truly 'free' market economy. Criminal laws, for example, prevent enormous amounts of financial losses by preventing and compensating for theft or property damage, and civil law gives further compensation. Labor unions, child labor laws, laws against discrimination, America's FED, various country's treasuries, the World Bank, and many other laws and institutions have a strong and direct impact on the economy with the intention of partially controlling it and regulating it. In this way, no Capitalist Democracy is purely free of Socialism.
And so, essentially, Socialism is just a form of extreme liberalism (in the sense that is accepted today, not "classical liberalism" or "libertarianism.") It should also be noted that both Conservativism and Liberalism share aspects of eachother. Liberals would not abandon moral laws, where Secular Humanism and Judeo-Christian ethics meet (such as public nudity or drug-use). Conservatives, on the other hand, also agree that there need to be some level of civil rights and some limitations on big business. As a result of both contemporary Liberalism and Conservativism being so moderate, even though Socialism is a form of extreme Liberalism, its aspects are not solely in Liberalism, but also in Conservativism, although not as prominent.
As stated before, Socialism is just a strong form of regulated, Capitalism. The same ideas on Capitalism apply to Socialism, except that in Socialism, the possibility for corruption can either greatly increase or greatly decrease. In the recent Iraqi War, several Defense firms and Oil Companies had direct ties to the politicians that set them up with government contracts. Politicians used their power, for personal gain, to the extent at which they could. Socialism can increase the extent of this corruption, because economic and political power are so unified.
However, if, like most Socialist governments, there are numerous conflicting political parties within the government, then Socialism would become corrupt at the same rate as a Capitalist Democracy or Republic. The reason for this is that although the government has ultimate authority over the economy, there is still at least one main political party which defends the rich and one main political party which defends the poor. The benefits of Socialism are also immense. They utilize the same benefits of Communism's centralized wealth, with superior education and healthcare.
On the other hand, though, Socialism is not necessarily a superior government to a Capitalist Democracy (or Republic). Because, as I mentioned, Socialism and Democracy become corrupt at the same rate, both growing towards a Plutocratic Aristocracy. Once both the Socialist country and the Democracy are totally governed by one corrupt, ruling class (rather than conflict parties), the Socialist country would become corrupt at a far faster rate than the Democracy, because of its centralized power and control. A government with two conflicting political parties without a Socialized economy have almost as much power as one just like it, with a Socialized economy (due to opposite sides of the political spectrum pointing the finger at eachother, for being corrupt). But an Plutocratic Aristocracy with a Socialized economy would become a corrupt at a much faster rate than a Plutocratic Aristocracy without a Socialized economy, due to the greater amount of control that the group has. In other words, initially, both Democracies and Socialist governments decline at the same rate, although Socialist countries have major benefits over Democracy. However, once they've gotten to a certain point, Socialist governments decline at an exponential rate, compared to Democracies, because the corrupt aristocracy has a greater level of control, to increase their wealth and resources, while exploiting the poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarchy
For those of you who aren't aware what Anarchy is, politically, it is a society which wants to abolish all government, so that people voluntarily co-exist in harmony. Some Anarchists support this idea because there is evidence to show that this is the state which mankind began in. When man traveled in groups of hunters and gatherers, there was probably very little personal property and everything that was produced was used. It was then that we were the most peaceful. Because there was no room to have more than others and there were no different classes to conflict with eachother.
In my opinion, though, these facts, even if true, are totally irrelevant. Because we live in a modern society with advanced technology. Our lives and our minds are completely different from primitive Cro-Magnons. An Anarchist's revolution is equally as ridiculous and impossible as a Communist revolution, for the exact same reasons. First of all, the vast majority of the world is not anarchist and convincing them to be would be just as difficult as with Communism. Taking them by force would not work, because it would be a huge and impossible war, and there's no guarantee that people would not retaliate, afterwards. Plus, just as with Communism, in an Anarchist's society, the only way for it to be possibly exist is if there is nothing temptating or enviable. Even past knowledge can lead to temptation of wealth. So, just like with a Communist revolution, you'd have to wage a massive, international war and erase all current knowledge and past evidence of individual financial prosperity. This is just not plausible.
One idea that also should be considered is that, as stated numerous times, mankind is inherently selfish. Even if mankind existed in a Utopian environment, in his beginnings, if he became selfish, without some outside selfishness acts to mimic, then the idea of selfishness as a learned behavior, as an original sin, falls apart. So, even if we could, theoretically, destroy all technology and became an Anarchist society, what could you do to prevent mankind from becoming selfish again? You could not. Because we've evolved that way. We may have once lived in total harmony, as a primitive Utopian society, but the selfishness we've developed is a step through evolution and we cannot turn back time. And unlike Communism, Anarchy cannot work through oppression. You can't force someone to live in harmony, with pure freedom. Plus, just like with Communism, people don't always agree. In large groups, they never agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Only Hopes
There are various obscure possibilities, of things which could save governments from decline, and even mankind's existence itself. However, these are so obscure, and the snowball of selfishness has rolled down the hill of humanity so fast and so far, that only a miracle prevent it. But that does not mean we should totally ignore any chance of redemption or salvation, no matter how improbable.
Simply put, the core reason why all governments will inevitably fail is because of the general lack of man's ethics. Ethics cannot be improved by religion, because fascist governments or groups can manipulate religion to promote evil just as much as religion, itself, can promote good. Ethics cannot be improved, permanently, through education, because people will always have differing opinions on ethics, and truly, ethical education is not the instruction of ethics, but rather, instruction of the ethics accepted by the government. In a capitalist government, this could include individualism (in my opinion, a euphemism for selfishness). In a communist government, it could be taught that government oppression is ethical. So, while ethical education might be good in some circumstances, it is not a solution. Secular Humanism is not a solution, because religion and cultural differences are not something you can ignore or eliminate. Ethical oppression (what many theorize Neoconservatives' have plotted) is not a solution. Because even if you consider yourself moral enough to dictate to society what is right, the moral oligarchy you put in power today could be next year's Nazi regime.
This leaves only two possible solutions: that mankind only governs itself as an illusion or that science discovers a way to dramatically increase morality. So far, there is little or no research into ethics, as science has pretty much concluded that all ethics are relative. This is not acceptable, because almost every person in the world feels, within the soul of their being, that there is an objective ethics, and so many people have strived so hard, to define it. It's not something that should ever be thrown away, or a quest we should give up so easily, especially in the face of its enormous benefits. Discovering objective ethics would be the answer. Truly, the only objective morality which, based on current knowledge, could be theoretically implemented if we had the logistic capability, would be selflessness. If science were to design genetic-engineering, neurosurgery, or nanobots which destroyed or changed human DNA or the part of the brain containing selfishness, then this could save humanity. It would create the Utopian commune that Communists, Anarchists, Science Fiction authors, and Philosophers dream of. But it would need to be universally implemented or those who are selfish could easily take advantage of those who are not. The ones implementing the "injection of selflessness" could also be subject to corruption. So, it might be a lot more complicated. Perhaps both selflessness and a greater intolerance for selfishness need to be injected into the human heart.
The other possibility, even more strange and obscure, is that mankind give up its right to govern itself, except as an illusion. It's very clear to me that mankind could not exist, at least not peacefully and happily, unless it could have the illusion of governing itself. Because, the only possibilities of outside entities which could govern our lives, are extraterrestrials (if they exist) or some form of sentient machine. Either way, this authority over us would create prejudice and one way or another, we would strike back, rebel, and overthrow our captors. As the American revolutionary, Patrick Henry said, "Give us liberty, or give us death!" And as the Scottish hero, William Wallace said, "They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!" This idea of fighting for freedom, whether aggressively or passively, even when faced with death is throughout all of the world's cultures. An oppressive alien or mechanical force would be no different. Therefore, whether controlled by computers or aliens from outer space, we would always need to be under the illusion that we are governing ourselves, although we are not. However, it's quite obvious that these two solutions are just conjecture, mostly fiction, and are so improbable. While I agree research into ethics should be vastly increased, we may need to accept that it's futile to resist the entropy of life.
Introduction
I've been trying to think about what the ideal government is, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no government which is not destined to fail. I call this political philosophy Mortalism, because it is based on the sound principle that there is an unfortunate limit to human understanding and as a result, every government that exists will eventually either be overthrown or through advanced technology kill off its entire population. In other words, it accepts that all governments are mortal.
The following is a series of rough drafts of philosophical essays I've written, proving how each government will eventually destroy itself, because of a certain economic system, and why. In my second drafts, I will include more historical examples and further explanation. For now, though, this is mostly logical reasoning, with a fair knowledge of psychology and how systems of government work.
The reason each government will fail is because of inherent selfishness in humanity, reflected in the economy which influences the government. In psychology, it's taught that our brains are driven towards pleasure and away from pain, towards what we desire and away from what we don't desire. This is a basic principle of Buddhism and it's further affirmed even by western proverbs, such as "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The greater amount of power a person has, the greater extent at which they can exercise their selfishness. In modern Democracies, there needs to be a system of checks and balances, where the selfishness of two different groups cancel eachother out, to prevent any one group from assuming absolute power and becoming corrupted, no different than a monarch would. So, essentially, although we can overcome it, all human beings are naturally wired to be hedonistic.
As I said, our governments will fall as a result of the economy having an impact on politics, regardless of the type of government. There are basically four main economic styles: Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and Anarchy. The last one could be interpreted as a form of Capitalism, Communism, or neither, and, in a way, either could be true, but proponents of Anarchy often argue the same points I am about to describe, when it comes to the flaws of both Capitalism and Communism in forms of government. So, for purposes of simplicity, I've kept it separate.
What I've previously stated, on Mortalism, sounds grim, as if there is actually no hope for humanity. This isn't actually true, as there are a few rare, but possible, scenarios where a government could exist theoretically stable, but they are so improbable that it's reasonable to accept that they will not happen. I'll explain the possibilities that might save us in the last essay. But even if the future is bleak, Mortalism does not completely accept futility. Instead, it stresses that instead of trying to find the ideal government and ignoring one political construct because of flaws, we should instead find which forms of government last the longest and what methods need to be taken to sustain them, even if the end is inevitable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism
A great deal of people in North America and eastern Europe tend to believe that capitalism is the strongest and most effective form of government. While I cannot deny their claims, my intent is not disprove this, but rather, to prove that, just like Communism, it will inevitably fail, although it seems to be more prominent and has lasted much longer.
The problem with capitalism is that it encourages class conflict. As someone once told me, "If you redistributed everyone's wealth equally in a capitalist country, within a matter of weeks, there'd be the haves and have-nots." Through great tragedy and a series of events after World War II, the middleclass exploded. However, as I'll explain, Capitalism has the tendency to push the depths of both wealth and poverty to greater extremes, until you have two classes, practically identical to past dictatorships. And that is the problem: class conflict. When capitalist governments become democratic aristocracies, the aristocrats look out for the benefit of those within their group, not the entire population.
In the beginnings of a democracy, whether direct or indirect, the people vote for political candidates. But the candidates voted into office are not fully representative of the entire population, but rather, they are fully representative of the majority of the population that voted for them. This utilitarian approach already creates an aristocracy. The "ruling class" of a democracy is the group which the majority favors. If a country is more than 50% white but almost 100% of their politicians are white (because majority almost always wins), then the "ruling class" are the white politicians. Yes, in a civilized society, they will not discriminate against others, based on anything but personal character. However, it has never been in the nature of mankind to be inherently tolerant, empathetic, or understanding.
Every culture which exists has racism and even those who are not profoundly racist, do base many of their beliefs on ignorant stereotypes and generalizations. Psychology's concepts of "categorical processing" and "availability heuristics", further affirm this principle. This is also one reason why modern governments require so many laws against discrimination. Every social group, whether it's as large as a government or as small as a high school, will have discrimination based upon whomever the majority most admires or has the greatest amount of power. And, once given that power, politicians who are favored by the majority, like high school jocks, cheerleaders, or any popular people in high school, will use that power to discriminate against others. This unfortunate aristocracy always leads to discrimination.
However, it is an extremely slow process. A balanced democracy does not become a fascist plutocracy overnight. This is because those with power are obligated to give people the appearance of being neutral, objective, and that they are looking out for everyone's needs, not just their own and their constituents. Depending on the level of corruption within a government, a large number of politicians may actually sincerely believe they're doing this. However, historically, political bodies always pander to the groups which put them in office. Currently, in America, Republicans are mostly voted for by upperclass, white, Christians. So, enforcing morality and removing restrictions on big business are on the agenda, while social welfare and equality generally is not. On the other hand, Democrats recieve a great deal of the minority vote and votes from the middle class. As a result, emphasizing the importance of civil rights, protecting the working class from big business, and social welfare are on the agenda, whereas protecting the rights of big business or promoting religious values are not. As you can clearly see, their policies are based around those that vote for them. This is what makes the transition to an aristocracy so slow: the necessity to somewhat pander to your constituents, whether sincere or not.
It is undeniable that democratic capitalist countries eventually become aristocracies, though, not only because of the utilitarian approach to voting, but also because politicians are not chosen based on their wisdom and competence, but rather, on the appearance of wisdom and competence. Yale's Method of Persuasion taught that the most important thing in a speech, in order to persuade someone, is not strong, logical reasoning, but rather, the ability to distract your audience, the appearance of credibility (youthfulness, beauty, etc), certain styles of arguments, and manipulating emotions. Greater financial resources allow people to utilize these psychological tools with greater effectiveness and scope. And even if laws are passed which give every politician equal amounts of campaign finances or put a cap on them, there will still undoubtedly be illegal, under-the-table finances or money secretly given to supposedly "independent" groups, in order to spread lies, through whisper campaigns, smear campaigns, and any other methods of dirty politics. (Karl Rove once defeated a political opponent by bugging his own office and claiming his opponent was responsible. When the FBI removed the bug, they discovered that the bug had an extremely limited range, the battery had a life of about 8 hours and when they examined it, tests showed that a fresh battery had been put in the device only about 20 minutes before they originally got there. This is just one example of dirty politics which can be achieved, even with limits on campaign finances.) Fixed elections are also the consequence of this corrupting aristocracy.
And so, in conclusion, democratic capitalism may be the slowest decaying form of government, but it is mortal. Utilitarian-based voting, whether direct or indirect, creates a ruling class. Disproportionate amounts of wealth contribute to this ruling class. Once the ruling class has assumed power, it slowly creates more benefits for their own group, while taking away the benefits of outsiders. Thus, in capitalism, the upperclass and lowerclass always travel away from eachother at two extreme sides of the financial spectrum. Immense poverty will certainly lead to an uprising. But even if this does not happen, once a democratic capitalist country allows this, it is no longer a democracy, but a fascist oligarchy under the guise of a democracy (as was the case with Saddam Hussein's reign of power, in Iraq).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Communism
It is commonly accepted in America and most of Europe that Communism will always fail, because of how most Communist governments, so far, have collapsed. It must be clear, however, that Communism is the same as Capitalism, in that they are both mortal, and both can collapse easily, under certain conditions. Many Communists argue that the majority of Communist nations were not really Communists, but rather, that they were people who advocated Stalinism. In other words, they often denied the absolute necessity of a Communist revolution and they somewhat incorporated capitalism into their economy. As a result, it was not true Communism, but rather, a perverted version of it. There was a corrupt bureaucracy, which attained large amounts of wealth, being envious of western, capitalist nations, and they exploited the poor. Some say China is like this today: a country which appears Communist, but is actually more Stalinist (which could be considered Communist, depending on who you ask). Communists say this is not the goal of Communism. Instead, the goal of Communism is just like Capitalism: a Democracy which fully represents the people. And truly, if their election system were identical to America's, I can't see why they would collapse as quickly as they did in the past.
But regardless, even though there are numerous factors which could speed up or slow down the fall of a Communist nation, there are clear reasons why it will obviously fail, eventually. First of all, there is no incentive. It is natural of all human beings to desire things, especially things which they see. Communism in Europe partially collapsed because it was envious of western prosperity and freedom, while their governments had to oppress them to maintain control and poverty rates were unacceptably high. It is possible that, if there were ever a global Communist Revolution, that Communism might be a lot more successful than it has been. Removing jealousy of foreign nations with greater civil rights and enviably prosperous middleclass and upperclass citizens, would be a way to get people to agree with Communism, as a form of government. That's the one major problem: People just simply don't agree. Many people wanted to escape Communist Europe, but the goverment, fearing even more damage to its economy, kept its citizens imprisoned within their own country.
But even so, I don't believe that even a Communist Revolution would sustain any Communist government, indefinately. As stated in the introduction, mankind has the natural tendency towards Hedonism, not selflessness. This natural tendency towards Hedonism may be as a result of being born into a Hedonistic world, so, growing up a Communist world may prevent it. However, even with a Communist Revolution, the potential for envy of capitalism still exists, because of the past. Memories and evidence of previously prosperous people under Capitalist countries would still be a way for people to desire what they don't have. It would be enormously difficult to spread Communism by means other than violent conflict, and even more difficult to convince a person raised with capitalism to give up feelings of individualism and self-gain, So, even with a Communist Revolution, they would literally have to invade every non-Communist country in the world, destroy all past relics and archaelogical evidence of Capitalism's prosperous groups, and oppress all of those who dissent, because they remember the truth. This is so ridiculously impossible that a Communist Revolution is just not practical, either trying to support it, or the benefits once it's carried out. You can distort history, but you cannot re-write huge portions of it. Any form of Communism has to oppress its people, as a result of this envy. Just like Capitalism's class-conflict, this oppression leads to rebellion. As Chapter 72 of the Tao Te Ching says, "When people no longer fear force, they bring about greater force. Do not limit their place. Do not reject their livelihood. Because the ruler does not reject them, therefore they do not reject the ruler."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism
Socialism is really just a form of regulated Capitalism. If you define Socialism as a government which fully controls all industries, then many countries today which call themselves Socialist, are not. If you define Socialism as a government which controls some industries, then every non-anarchist capitalist country is somewhat Socialist, in nature. For this reason, it would be ignorant of someone to criticize a country such as Canada for being moderately Socialist (or claim Socialism has killed thousands of people), while ignoring the fact that all capitalist countries control or direct the economy and its industries, in one form or another. In other words, all non-anarchist capitalist countries are more or less Socialist in nature. Having an abundance of Socialist laws makes us consider them "Socialist." But having some laws based on Socialist principles automatically makes us totally devoid of Socialism's influence, and gives us a truly free market economy? Definitely not.
Only in Anarchy is there pure capitalism or a truly 'free' market economy. Criminal laws, for example, prevent enormous amounts of financial losses by preventing and compensating for theft or property damage, and civil law gives further compensation. Labor unions, child labor laws, laws against discrimination, America's FED, various country's treasuries, the World Bank, and many other laws and institutions have a strong and direct impact on the economy with the intention of partially controlling it and regulating it. In this way, no Capitalist Democracy is purely free of Socialism.
And so, essentially, Socialism is just a form of extreme liberalism (in the sense that is accepted today, not "classical liberalism" or "libertarianism.") It should also be noted that both Conservativism and Liberalism share aspects of eachother. Liberals would not abandon moral laws, where Secular Humanism and Judeo-Christian ethics meet (such as public nudity or drug-use). Conservatives, on the other hand, also agree that there need to be some level of civil rights and some limitations on big business. As a result of both contemporary Liberalism and Conservativism being so moderate, even though Socialism is a form of extreme Liberalism, its aspects are not solely in Liberalism, but also in Conservativism, although not as prominent.
As stated before, Socialism is just a strong form of regulated, Capitalism. The same ideas on Capitalism apply to Socialism, except that in Socialism, the possibility for corruption can either greatly increase or greatly decrease. In the recent Iraqi War, several Defense firms and Oil Companies had direct ties to the politicians that set them up with government contracts. Politicians used their power, for personal gain, to the extent at which they could. Socialism can increase the extent of this corruption, because economic and political power are so unified.
However, if, like most Socialist governments, there are numerous conflicting political parties within the government, then Socialism would become corrupt at the same rate as a Capitalist Democracy or Republic. The reason for this is that although the government has ultimate authority over the economy, there is still at least one main political party which defends the rich and one main political party which defends the poor. The benefits of Socialism are also immense. They utilize the same benefits of Communism's centralized wealth, with superior education and healthcare.
On the other hand, though, Socialism is not necessarily a superior government to a Capitalist Democracy (or Republic). Because, as I mentioned, Socialism and Democracy become corrupt at the same rate, both growing towards a Plutocratic Aristocracy. Once both the Socialist country and the Democracy are totally governed by one corrupt, ruling class (rather than conflict parties), the Socialist country would become corrupt at a far faster rate than the Democracy, because of its centralized power and control. A government with two conflicting political parties without a Socialized economy have almost as much power as one just like it, with a Socialized economy (due to opposite sides of the political spectrum pointing the finger at eachother, for being corrupt). But an Plutocratic Aristocracy with a Socialized economy would become a corrupt at a much faster rate than a Plutocratic Aristocracy without a Socialized economy, due to the greater amount of control that the group has. In other words, initially, both Democracies and Socialist governments decline at the same rate, although Socialist countries have major benefits over Democracy. However, once they've gotten to a certain point, Socialist governments decline at an exponential rate, compared to Democracies, because the corrupt aristocracy has a greater level of control, to increase their wealth and resources, while exploiting the poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarchy
For those of you who aren't aware what Anarchy is, politically, it is a society which wants to abolish all government, so that people voluntarily co-exist in harmony. Some Anarchists support this idea because there is evidence to show that this is the state which mankind began in. When man traveled in groups of hunters and gatherers, there was probably very little personal property and everything that was produced was used. It was then that we were the most peaceful. Because there was no room to have more than others and there were no different classes to conflict with eachother.
In my opinion, though, these facts, even if true, are totally irrelevant. Because we live in a modern society with advanced technology. Our lives and our minds are completely different from primitive Cro-Magnons. An Anarchist's revolution is equally as ridiculous and impossible as a Communist revolution, for the exact same reasons. First of all, the vast majority of the world is not anarchist and convincing them to be would be just as difficult as with Communism. Taking them by force would not work, because it would be a huge and impossible war, and there's no guarantee that people would not retaliate, afterwards. Plus, just as with Communism, in an Anarchist's society, the only way for it to be possibly exist is if there is nothing temptating or enviable. Even past knowledge can lead to temptation of wealth. So, just like with a Communist revolution, you'd have to wage a massive, international war and erase all current knowledge and past evidence of individual financial prosperity. This is just not plausible.
One idea that also should be considered is that, as stated numerous times, mankind is inherently selfish. Even if mankind existed in a Utopian environment, in his beginnings, if he became selfish, without some outside selfishness acts to mimic, then the idea of selfishness as a learned behavior, as an original sin, falls apart. So, even if we could, theoretically, destroy all technology and became an Anarchist society, what could you do to prevent mankind from becoming selfish again? You could not. Because we've evolved that way. We may have once lived in total harmony, as a primitive Utopian society, but the selfishness we've developed is a step through evolution and we cannot turn back time. And unlike Communism, Anarchy cannot work through oppression. You can't force someone to live in harmony, with pure freedom. Plus, just like with Communism, people don't always agree. In large groups, they never agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Only Hopes
There are various obscure possibilities, of things which could save governments from decline, and even mankind's existence itself. However, these are so obscure, and the snowball of selfishness has rolled down the hill of humanity so fast and so far, that only a miracle prevent it. But that does not mean we should totally ignore any chance of redemption or salvation, no matter how improbable.
Simply put, the core reason why all governments will inevitably fail is because of the general lack of man's ethics. Ethics cannot be improved by religion, because fascist governments or groups can manipulate religion to promote evil just as much as religion, itself, can promote good. Ethics cannot be improved, permanently, through education, because people will always have differing opinions on ethics, and truly, ethical education is not the instruction of ethics, but rather, instruction of the ethics accepted by the government. In a capitalist government, this could include individualism (in my opinion, a euphemism for selfishness). In a communist government, it could be taught that government oppression is ethical. So, while ethical education might be good in some circumstances, it is not a solution. Secular Humanism is not a solution, because religion and cultural differences are not something you can ignore or eliminate. Ethical oppression (what many theorize Neoconservatives' have plotted) is not a solution. Because even if you consider yourself moral enough to dictate to society what is right, the moral oligarchy you put in power today could be next year's Nazi regime.
This leaves only two possible solutions: that mankind only governs itself as an illusion or that science discovers a way to dramatically increase morality. So far, there is little or no research into ethics, as science has pretty much concluded that all ethics are relative. This is not acceptable, because almost every person in the world feels, within the soul of their being, that there is an objective ethics, and so many people have strived so hard, to define it. It's not something that should ever be thrown away, or a quest we should give up so easily, especially in the face of its enormous benefits. Discovering objective ethics would be the answer. Truly, the only objective morality which, based on current knowledge, could be theoretically implemented if we had the logistic capability, would be selflessness. If science were to design genetic-engineering, neurosurgery, or nanobots which destroyed or changed human DNA or the part of the brain containing selfishness, then this could save humanity. It would create the Utopian commune that Communists, Anarchists, Science Fiction authors, and Philosophers dream of. But it would need to be universally implemented or those who are selfish could easily take advantage of those who are not. The ones implementing the "injection of selflessness" could also be subject to corruption. So, it might be a lot more complicated. Perhaps both selflessness and a greater intolerance for selfishness need to be injected into the human heart.
The other possibility, even more strange and obscure, is that mankind give up its right to govern itself, except as an illusion. It's very clear to me that mankind could not exist, at least not peacefully and happily, unless it could have the illusion of governing itself. Because, the only possibilities of outside entities which could govern our lives, are extraterrestrials (if they exist) or some form of sentient machine. Either way, this authority over us would create prejudice and one way or another, we would strike back, rebel, and overthrow our captors. As the American revolutionary, Patrick Henry said, "Give us liberty, or give us death!" And as the Scottish hero, William Wallace said, "They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!" This idea of fighting for freedom, whether aggressively or passively, even when faced with death is throughout all of the world's cultures. An oppressive alien or mechanical force would be no different. Therefore, whether controlled by computers or aliens from outer space, we would always need to be under the illusion that we are governing ourselves, although we are not. However, it's quite obvious that these two solutions are just conjecture, mostly fiction, and are so improbable. While I agree research into ethics should be vastly increased, we may need to accept that it's futile to resist the entropy of life.