Story: How billionaires destroy democracy
This is just one recent story of many that are consistently being written having to do with the problems that come with high concentrations of wealth under the control of a few people. We keep seeing the evidence that this is a bad idea but fail to really do anything about it. Why is something that is so obviously detrimental left unchanged?
Buried among the reasons we humans tend to not act in our best interest in this regard is something that I don't think gets discussed much. It is the tendency--maybe even a unacknowledged desire--to be ruled by a small group of elites. I think the main reason this may be true is because it allows us to point to someone or some group specifically when we want to know who's in charge. Even if we don't like something that's going on, there is a level of comfort knowing that there is a tangible something out there running the show. If power and wealth are too heavily diffused, then that ability is nonexistent and, to most, unsettling. It's more comforting to have something concrete (or close to it) that can be assigned responsibility.
(This is also likely the reason gods were invented, and the reason for the eventual move from a pantheon of gods to monotheism.)
This same principle is likely in play when it comes to monarchies, and all feudal systems. These systems are set up to funnel wealth and power to an elite few, yet they have their supporters among those under their control. If there is a problem that arises, the solution is hardly ever to give "power to the people," but to replace the current ruling class with another one operating with the same authority. They system isn't flawed, they will say, only the people in charge are flawed.
One of the ironic things about this condition is the usual support for democracy and capitalism that is repeated by supporters of inequality. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. When it comes to capitalism, for example, the "magic hand" so many tout as the key to it working includes the requirement that there be a large number of very small players so that none of them has the power of influence on their own. When it comes to democracy, it can only be operational if "we the people" can actually participate in it. Again, a large number of very small players is key. But we have those with the most wealth and power convincing us otherwise.
And here's the main point...no matter what name we give a social system and what components we pretend to put in place under that name, we always seem to find a way to create a small number of off-the-chart winners with the vast majority of people accepting their lot as titanic losers. Until we, as a species, have the courage to actually put power in a non-distinct entity like "the people," we will continue to let a handful of us rule the rest, meaning our future will be more-or-less a series of minor name changes to the systems we pretend are different.
This is just one recent story of many that are consistently being written having to do with the problems that come with high concentrations of wealth under the control of a few people. We keep seeing the evidence that this is a bad idea but fail to really do anything about it. Why is something that is so obviously detrimental left unchanged?
Buried among the reasons we humans tend to not act in our best interest in this regard is something that I don't think gets discussed much. It is the tendency--maybe even a unacknowledged desire--to be ruled by a small group of elites. I think the main reason this may be true is because it allows us to point to someone or some group specifically when we want to know who's in charge. Even if we don't like something that's going on, there is a level of comfort knowing that there is a tangible something out there running the show. If power and wealth are too heavily diffused, then that ability is nonexistent and, to most, unsettling. It's more comforting to have something concrete (or close to it) that can be assigned responsibility.
(This is also likely the reason gods were invented, and the reason for the eventual move from a pantheon of gods to monotheism.)
This same principle is likely in play when it comes to monarchies, and all feudal systems. These systems are set up to funnel wealth and power to an elite few, yet they have their supporters among those under their control. If there is a problem that arises, the solution is hardly ever to give "power to the people," but to replace the current ruling class with another one operating with the same authority. They system isn't flawed, they will say, only the people in charge are flawed.
One of the ironic things about this condition is the usual support for democracy and capitalism that is repeated by supporters of inequality. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. When it comes to capitalism, for example, the "magic hand" so many tout as the key to it working includes the requirement that there be a large number of very small players so that none of them has the power of influence on their own. When it comes to democracy, it can only be operational if "we the people" can actually participate in it. Again, a large number of very small players is key. But we have those with the most wealth and power convincing us otherwise.
And here's the main point...no matter what name we give a social system and what components we pretend to put in place under that name, we always seem to find a way to create a small number of off-the-chart winners with the vast majority of people accepting their lot as titanic losers. Until we, as a species, have the courage to actually put power in a non-distinct entity like "the people," we will continue to let a handful of us rule the rest, meaning our future will be more-or-less a series of minor name changes to the systems we pretend are different.
No comments:
Post a Comment