Power to the People

      Modern political theory revolves mostly around the Marxist vs. Capitalist arguments that we have heard throughout the twentieth century. Leftist elements claim that corporations and the upper class exploit the working class for their own gain, and that the working class' only redress is to set up a "proletarian dictatorship" or comparable system to control the upper class and liberate the working man. Meanwhile, the right-winger would claim that those with the money and skill will lead the economy best, and that whatever the working class suffers it does so because of the irrefutable laws of economics, not because the upper class is actively exploiting them. They are both wrong.
      The problem with modern political arguments is that their very basis is wrong, in other words, partisans ( of both tendencies) are arguing over the wrong matter, and are ignoring the facts about sociology and people. Marx argued that people were only as powerful as they could work, that people's only value was in their ability to labor for society. And even his most virulent opponents have agreed on that idea, they just "interpret" if differently. The truth is, like it or not, people are as powerful as they have guns, as powerful as they have the will and the means.

      My counter theory to the Marxist/Anti-Marxist bickering: all governments and social structures draw their power only as the people will allow them to. All governments. No exceptions. Let me say that again. All governments and social structures draw their power only as the people will allow them to. Note that I said "allow", not "want" or "desire". I will list some examples: in Orwell's famous novel 1984, the people have been taught that there is no other power than Big Brother, that there is no other political theory, no way of governing but by the way they are governing at the time. Thus, the people are literally tricked into supporting that mythically oppressive government. The communist bloc of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact Nations existed because either their people feared reprisal or they had been misled into the mental fun-house of Marxist theory. The people were too afraid of or too conned by the government to unite and resist-no, destroy-that government. The people of Nazi Germany allowed Hitler to rule because he had convinced them that they were a chosen race, and that he along could lead them away from the evil "Jewry" of the rest of the world. He tricked and scared them into accepting his rule. Those living now under the Muslim zealots do so because they have been told that those rulers will lead them to paradise, that if they disobey these leaders, they will die and never enter their Heaven. Thus those leaders can control and manipulate the people.

      But if any of the people in the above examples had decided to end that government, they could have (as long as enough of them united). Who can stop an entire populace from doing anything? You can kill them, but that is like burning your body to cure a disease. You kill the disease, and then die yourself. The leadership is only as strong is its people are. They would rule over barren lands and vacant lots if they were to kill all of their people. That is never a solution. We now arrive at democracy. What does democracy do to people? The reality is that democracy also controls people-albeit allowing them many more rights and much more opportunity than any other government. Winston Churchill's quote puts it well: "Democracy is the worst government, except all of the others that have been tried" (paraphrased). Democracy's method of exploitation is to give the people some rather limited control in their government and then make them think they fully control it. This way, they are tricked into believing that the politicians' decisions are their own. But this is not to say democracy is wholly bad, it certainly is a great step, but as a step it is not the pinnacle of government.

      The biggest question that we are addressing here is a monumentally important one: are the people, in all of their noble averageness, fit to rule themselves? Can the people make sound decisions about government, or are they simply not well educated and experienced enough to make such complex decisions? The answer must be part theory and part fact. The theory: people should rule so that they may choose how their lives are affected by government, how their government works. People should be allowed to rule because they are being ruled. The reality: people make bad decisions sometimes. A well-meaning leader can easily come across as "tyrannical" or "oppressive" to those not educated in socio-economic political theory and law. At the same time, to trust the ruling of a nation to just a few chosen people easily can lead to a true tyranny, or an inept leadership like that of the last Czar ( Tsar ) of Russia, Alexander II. A balance must be achieved between what people want and what people need. There is a thin line that divides popular rule and anarchy, and a similar line that divides wise leadership and dictatorial control.

      Again, party answers are worthless. The left would have us believe that corporations, defined as companies owned by thousands of free people, are out to conquer and "imperialize" the world into some sort of fascist regime. They fear (or rather make us fear) that capitalism is out of control, oppressing and destroying at every turn for some blue-suited "the Man". They claim that "liberal" government policies would protect people from such exploitation and abuse, that they alone can save us from the evils of capitalism. The reality is again much different. Capitalism allows anyone with the skill and a little financial backing (which anyone can get at a bank) can start a business and, by their own hard work and skill, achieve their personal financial goals. Capitalism is responsible for the incredible advance in quality and length of life experienced in the last hundred years. Those living in Communist countries have experienced at best a painfully slow improvement in life quality. In fact, many have had a worse quality of life than that of their parents, as seen in the famines and mass murders of the stormy forced industrialization of the 1930's in the Soviet Union.

      At the same time, conservatives certainly have had their share of rabid and reactionary ( referred to as "knee-jerk when describing a liberal and reactionary when talking about a conservative. What is a knee-jerk……..a reaction. These terms are different words for the same political practice of reacting radically in politics) ideologies and policies. A major facet of the industrialized economies of this century have been labor unions. Conservatives have attacked these unions as "un-American", socialistic, and dangerous. In reality, labor unions represent the ultimate sign of a truly capitalist society. No! liberals and conservatives gasp, feeling the party-indoctrination fizz and bubble in their heads. Yes-labor unions are simply laborers trying to get the highest wages, that is, the highest profit for their product, which in this case is labor. Laborers are in fact selling a service or product like any other member of an economy. Their service or product is labor, and they, much like a massive company, seek to get as much profit as possible for as little cost as possible. Labor unions serve to stabilize the economy and allow workers to sell their product for as much as possible. They are a very important element of any truly capitalist economy. Yes, like some corporations, some unions are corrupt and actually degenerative towards our economy. But that is a fact in any economy-capitalist or communist. People can be greedy, and that will not change. But over all, unions are very important to our economy.

      It is this idea: that we should not favor one group but recognize the importance and legitimacy of all races and classes in society that is central to my political views. To say that one class or race deserves more than another is the central issue behind leftist and rightist thought. Leftists claim protection over the working class and minorities, while the rightists claim to represent the majority race and the middle and upper class. It is time we ended this unfortunate habit of thinking government can only help one group. To do so is to admit that government cannot truly help society, that it can only pick favorites within it.

      I do not pretend that this essay can fully explain the problems of modern political thought or my deeply rooted rejection of it. I do hope, though, that it has at least made you thought seriously about politics. That is a start.