cyrena:
’... But, I did think of you earlier when I was linking another post to Hannah Arendt’s “Origins of Totalitarianism.” Did you ever read that work? It’s long, complex, and for me at least, very, very helpful in clarifying many of my own theoretical questions. Anyway, if not, you might appreciate it. It’s dated, (about 1953 for the original, and she added later) but definitely a classic. ...’

I may have read it a long time ago.  Arendt’s work has alway provoked me a good deal, so getting through it has been laborious for me.  I would have liked to argue about many of her ideas with her, but I missed my chance.  In the matter of totalitarianism, I would point to the Inquisition as the ancestor, which to my knowledge is the first historical example of people being punished, not for what they do or say, or how they look or what tribe they belong to, but for what they think.  I suppose there may be earlier ones I don’t know about.  The concept of philosophy itself, of course, by assuming that there is good and bad thought, implies such a judgement; and one of Pythagoras’s students was supposedly strangled for pointing out that the square root of 2 is an irrational number.

It amused me that later on Jeane Kirkpatrick lifted Arendt’s trichotomy of liberalism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism and deformed it into yet another tool of propaganda, for which she was widely honored.

“Whether they are desirable is a question of the differing weights of one’s values.  Human beings are strongly attracted to violence and domination, both actively and passively; we probably have an evolutionary history resembling that of dogs or baboons, and pack behavior is strong with us.  If it were not for the accident of our technological development, we could spend the next million years in small wandering troops, happily ripping one another apart in the woods.  Technology and industrialism have changed all that; we have stepped out of Nature, so to speak, and can’t go home again.  We have a fundamentally tragic nature—we can never more enjoy the berserker violence which we crave, except in the movies.”

Thanks for the response anarcissie. I’m not going to ‘critique’ this other than to say that I agree that this is highly probable, in terms of technology changing our basically violent or as you say ‘tragic’ nature. 

It’s an age old question of course - the basic nature of humans, is it Hobbs theory, that we’ll just batter each other to death in our ‘natural’ form, or is it Locke’s idea that humans are more inclined toward pragmatic cooperation? I can only say it seems to be an existential sort of a thing, since I’m being a bit lazy at the moment, intellectually speaking at least.

But, I did think of you earlier when I was linking another post to Hannah Arendt’s “Origins of Totalitarianism.” Did you ever read that work? It’s long, complex, and for me at least, very, very helpful in clarifying many of my own theoretical questions. Anyway, if not, you might appreciate it. It’s dated, (about 1953 for the original, and she added later) but definitely a classic.

spaghetti happens,

You hit it on Regents of course. It all depends on which day it is, and who’s around. But in all intellectual fairness, no one can legitimately complain about the word “Bullshit” in a paper on “Propaganda”. I mean - ya know? It is what it is.

The suffix -archy as in monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, and so on, comes from the Greek root arkh- which shows up in words meaning to lead, to rule, to govern.  In modern languages it almost always refers to government, that is, institutionalized social coercion, almost always involving force and the threat of force, along with sovereign, absolute claims over territory and populations.  It does not refer to social cohesion, which is mostly voluntary, familial or traditional.  In fact, one widely practiced technique of government is to break down natural forms of social cohesion in order to make subject populations more amenable to control and exploitation.

anarcissie, I shall do so.  In the meantime, it just seems to me that “archy”, in the sense of humans banding together and developing one form of self-government or another, is a natural outgrowth of enculturalization.

Many of the various forms—perhaps most—of “archy” have been deleterious to human development.  That development has continued nevertheless, through the great religious and philosophical advances that have led us to the present, wherein I can say that I want to have a governmental authority of some kind (and I have a picture in my head) that is capable of marshalling the resources at hand in order to create a living-space that is suitable for me in this amalgamation of humanity we call society.

Anarchy, in that sense, seems nihilistic.  But I remain to be enlightened.

spaghetti—You should not take me as a representative anarchist.  Instead, I recommend you check out the two links which I posted, one to Wikipedia and the other to Bryan Caplan’s FAQ.

I’d probably be glad to engage any specific criticisms you may have of my ideas, but what you’ve written about positive developments of the last 2000 years and workability and so forth is a bit vague for me to get a grip on.

Now I know why I’m not an anarchist, given that I hadn’t even thought about it until about 30 seconds ago.  If anarchism is what I’m gleaning from your posts here, it seems (1) to reject or ignore any of the positive evolutions in human thinking over the past, oh, one or two thousand years—or more—and (2) to be utterly hopeless as a workable institution of human society.

Wow, give a species a chance, people.  We ain’t perfect but then who is?

Cyrena—congratulations on being the first person in history to critique “Anarchist Praxis” is a serious way.  It’s been around for about ten years and reference to it is usually followed by silence.

The main focus of the essay is not whether anarchy (that is, non-violent, non-coercive social organization) is desirable or possible but how to get there from here non-violently and non-coercively.  The essay appeared in an anarchist context (the Usenet newsgroup alt.society.anarchy) where the desirability and possibility of non-coercive societies are assumed.  For you these are questionable and require other essays.  However, I did want to show that practical alternatives have been proposed, by me and others.

Whether they are desirable is a question of the differing weights of one’s values.  Human beings are strongly attracted to violence and domination, both actively and passively; we probably have an evolutionary history resembling that of dogs or baboons, and pack behavior is strong with us.  If it were not for the accident of our technological development, we could spend the next million years in small wandering troops, happily ripping one another apart in the woods.  Technology and industrialism have changed all that; we have stepped out of Nature, so to speak, and can’t go home again.  We have a fundamentally tragic nature—we can never more enjoy the berserker violence which we crave, except in the movies.  Our technologies ensure that if we continue to construct ever more effective political weapons (the state) and physical weapons (too numerous to name), if we continue to order our societies according to the struggle for power over one another, we will destroy ourselves.  That is simple reason based on obvious evidence.  The choice we have is between some kind of Götterdämmerung and anarchy.  For those who want the human race to continue to exist, then, anarchy—peace, freedom and equality—is the only game in town, weak tea though it may seem compared to the drama of the destruction of the world in flames.

(As a substitute for war, we do have competitive sports and the rioting which often follows important games.  One might also consider adding gladiatorial combat to the sporting repertoire.)

In regard to the possibility of anarchy, we know that human beings can exist in small groups, up to about 150 adults, without government or even representative bodies.  There ought to be some way of scaling up non-coercive methods of ordering societies, but we will not know empirically until we make some effort to do it.  The works of Robert Axelrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod) may be informative about this question.  As far as I can tell from the materials I have read, there is no theoretical upper limit to the complexity of non-coercive social institutions.

Anarcissie, thanks for responding. Your question regarding how we can trust human beings to rule us if, as I suggested, we are all untrustworthy, is interesting. My answer is that human beings are all we have, and we will be governed no matter how we fight against it.

Indeed, I admire your tenacity in promoting and defending anarchy. However, I think it is a dream that will never come true for the masses. In communes or small communities, perhaps, it is possible for people to live by its philosophy, but I don’t believe it could be general. Capitalism is entrenched, and since it is and since it controls everything, it has the big guns to fight any threat to it. I agree with many of the arguments I read here that capitalism is the ultimate fraud and slave-maker, but somewhere deep inside most Americans is a belief that it is the only way of life that is tenable. As long as that belief is shared by a vast majority, changes, such as anarchy, I do not think are possible.

Also, I still contend that as dog packs have the alpha male, so too will there always be the alpha human male whose authority will come from his weapon, whatever that is. No, we cannot trust them to rule, I agree, but I don’t believe we can stop them unless we come to warfare, which has always been human beings’ way of striving for the position of ruler. Perhaps America has come the closest to solving the question of who rules by changing, or attempting to change, rulers every four years or so. As Winston Churchill once said, democracy is a very bad system of government, but it is far batter than anything else. I know you disagree with that statement, but I think it may sum up the general thinking of the American people.

Finally, the easiest form of government is feudalism, probably, because once people accept it as the norm, no questions are asked. You do what your station in life requires of you, and everyone appears to be happy. Those who express anything else find themselves either tortured into shutting up or they die. Yes, there is some comparison with feudalism and what we live under here, but the primitive side of humans will always bubble up if their way of life is threatened. At least here you and I can express our opinions and not fear the ax as much.

Thank you, again, for your response. I’ve learned a lot in the last few days.

Thanks, cyrena.  You’re welcome to it, though I hope you’re going to one of those liberal colleges where you can get away with using “bullshit” in your paper and not be dinged for it (ha!  Only at Regent).

Anarcissie,
I’m really inclined toward altlic’s reality here:

•  “Yes, power structures are all about preserving their power, but how else does anything happen on a civic level? Puhlease!”

But, I wanted to see what you had offered as an alternative, since you never have before. The issue that you normally write about of course, is the power structure and the evilness of it. Well yeah, most of what you’ve been claiming here over the months about the elite and all of the rest, has indeed been the case for the majority of my life.

Power equals money, and we have clearly been defrauded. I’m not going to argue your points about that, because it’s all basically true. The US government system was FOUNDED on an economic policy that required slaves, and the people running the show were the ones who had managed to appropriate land that gave them control of the means of production. So in that respect, it was a farce in terms of much of the ideology, and that has persisted, based on the capitalist system that has been in effect since.

As an aside, did you check out the article referencing the Islamic Banking/Economic system as a model? You should check it out, just for the heck of it. I did some very brief research on it myself a while back. It’s not based on a capitalist profit system, just because the Islamic Legal Structure forbids usury of any kind. (of course so does the American’s Christian bible, but we know how sincere that is…since those bibles are often gold plated disks in the pockets of the worst perpetrators of the theft and fraud.) So, it might be worth a look.
Anyway, I pretty much understand (I think) your explanation of the theory of how the wealthy elite have controlled us, but I don’t believe that it’s because there isn’t a system in place to prevent it, (the Law) but because it hasn’t been enforced.

But, I wanted to read your piece at the link, and so I have read a portion of it, not all yet….but some. And, the idea of communes and what I generally reference as ‘co-ops’ is always a good idea, but I’m not sure how or why the anarchy is required to create that. I mean, this is something that we should be (and in my case – have been) working at the local level. Tao Walker addresses this all of the time. So, it’s doable, and we know that. But, in my opinion, that’s what President Obama is advocating, at least as the long term goal.

But, I’ll get back to that later For now, just a couple of observations on a few of your points:

•  “Much of this coercion is based on a fiction of scarcity, which is promoted in spite of the
fact that humanity’s powers of production have long since made the provision of basic needs an objectively trivial problem.”

This could be a problematic assumption, (though I agree with the idea that scarcity has been promoted, it doesn’t mean it’s not real) because it isn’t so true at all that humanities’ powers of production have always provided for us. Huge populations of Native Americans were wiped out when their buffalo were intentionally killed off. They didn’t ‘adapt’ to not having those resources for food and everything else, and they died off.

And looking around, it’s very difficult to accept that the provision of basic needs is an objectively trivial problem. It isn’t. Just a glance around will tell us that. If it was so easy, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in. I don’t believe for a moment that people CHOOSE to be hungry, homeless, or sick. So, if the provision of basic needs were an objectively trivial problem, (even though you say that the no government is responsible for providing such anyway) we would have managed a way to save ourselves before it got this bad, DESPITE the crooks. We could simply have cut them out of the action long ago, just by following the original blueprint, (the Constitution) which DOES allow for changes as the circumstances allow.

2 of 2
Then there’s the scarcity issue, and the difference between the original propaganda to create it, and the global reality of NOW, which makes it very real.

WATER is as basic as it’s always been to the human existence, and ENERGY is now a ‘requirement’ of a 21st Century life, and even if we did still have a triple cazillion pounds of crude accessible, we can’t survive much longer if we keep burning the stuff. So I guess I don’t realistically find these basics at all objectively easy to come by. In theory, maybe. The cave people did it, or supposedly. The Quakers have existed quite well too, and might very well make for a perfect model along with the Native American structure.

Matter of fact, I just remembered a book that might be interesting for you…in the same vein as what you’re thinking here, and possibly useful:

“New Capitalists: Law, Politics, and Identity Surrounding Casino Gaming on Native American Land” (Case Studies on Contemporary Social Issues)
by Eve Darian-Smith (Author)

OK, I’m gonna wrap this up. I just wanted to let you know that I’d read the beginnings of your piece, and I get the theory, I just don’t know how realistic such alternatives are in a 21st Century society that really IS a society. We can’t ignore the interconnectedness. If there’s any real scarcity now, (and believe me, there are places in the world where the people are fighting over the fish in the sea) addressing that scarcity has everything to do with operating more efficiently, so that there isn’t the ‘waste’ (jillions in profits to keep the elite – elite and in power). I don’t see how that can possibly happen efficiently without a measure of centralization, and clearly some administrators who exercise good judgment in the logistics of it all.

I remember discussing this in depth some years ago, in terms of the Civil Rights Movement. Ella Baker was one who didn’t believe that any ‘leaders’ were needed for the movement, and I consider that to be the ‘ideal’, or my ‘utopia’. We don’t need a leader, and we don’t need laws, as long as everybody just minds their own business, does their own thing, and all of that. Everybody is just supposed to ‘know’ the right way to do things, and on and on. In other words, we need know central ‘authority’. Like I said. It sounds wonderful, except that it doesn’t exist in reality. Or, as altlic says, that would last for about 2 weeks.

So there HAS to be an authority, even if that authority is an agreed upon set of rules (like we use to drive around from place to place to avoid killing each other). In fact, that is the BEST authority…which is the agreed upon set of rules (AKA = the rule of law - not wo/man) to keep the operation going. The ‘authority’ here is supposed to be the Constitution, and we need administrators for that. When people in ANY given society have grievances, (and we always have and will) there does need to be an ultimate authority to address them, and the rules of the road need to be observed. If there aren’t any ‘rules’ with an ‘authority’ to administer to their enforcement, we just wouldn’t be able to do a whole lot of the things that we take for granted now..like flying around in airplanes, since we (as groups or individuals) aren’t the only airplanes in the sky.

All of that said, I think the system itself is already in place. We just have to start using it again, and I believe that’s Obama’s plan.

gaylordcat—Consider this as a starting point:  If human beings are untrustworthy and prone to violence and crime, how can we trust them to rule us?

This question is becoming especially urgent as humans develop ever more potent weapons and ever more dangerous vulnerabilities.  It is pretty clear that the competition for power which the state embodies can lead only to catastrophe.  It is said that in the 20th century, something like 200 million people were intentionally killed by governments; consider how far technology, especially the technologies of death and destruction, have moved since then.

For a more general overview of anarchy and anarchism, the Wikipedia article isn’t bad ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism ) and there is also Bryan Caplan’s FAQ, http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm.

By spaghetti happens, February 28 at 4:13 pm

•  “Let’s just agree to call propaganda what it really is, and propaganda is what enabled the so-called “Reagan Revolution”.  If you look at Karl Rove, you see the essence of what Republicanism is and has been since Reagan:  a message of lies designed to divert attention away from what is toward some mythical conception of what people supposedly want, even if that isn’t what people really need.  I think the whole point of EJ’s column is that this era of applied bullshit—propaganda as a stand-in for real governance—may at last be ending.”

~~~

Oh spaghetti happens,

This is absolutely great! I love it. It’s my lastest academic project, (propaganda) and so I want to use your terminology here, (that made my day) “The Era of Applied Bullshit” as a working title. (I’ll probably have to change it later, but this is absolutely great for now.)  This is exactly what I’m writing about. This Era of Applied Bullshit. The propaganda has been more pervasive and honestly world changing, (especially in terms of the propaganda needed to launch the so called ‘war on terror’) in the past 8 years than anything I’ve ever experienced in my own 56 years, or heard or read about from others.

And yes, I think it IS ending. Just the past 6 weeks have made that pretty clear, though many of the changes so far still go unrecognized or unacknowledged by those who’ve possibly never known any other sort of governance.

At least that’s my guess. They’ll get used to it eventually. If not…the rest of us will.

Anarcissie, I guess I don’t understand anarchy. From definitions gathered from dictionaries, history books, encyclopedia, etc., I always thought it a bad thing. We didn’t want anarchy because it brought chaos and strife. After researching a bit, I found it is much more complex than the simple definitions I accepted years ago.

But I wonder if such an idea as anarchy was or is possible amongst human beings. As a member of the human species, I see us as very untrustworthy. Even on our best day we can be cruel and deadly, just as we can be kind and benevolent on other days. But we are one of the few creatures on our planet who kills for pleasure. Ants kill for pleasure, I am told, and cats—even my beloved Millie—tortures mice if given a chance.

So when you say anarchism was probably most pure during our tribal life, I wonder how true that can be. Was there not someone, bigger and stronger than all others, in charge? Did he, probably a male, lord it over the tribe and call the shots? I can’t imagine that not happening in a group of human beings. Was there ever a time when humans were so wonderful that they shared everything and didn’t try to govern in some way?

I’ve researched anarchist communities, and I find that extremely few were successful for a long time. At some point, something that looked like a government took over and the communities failed. Such places as New Harmony, Indiana, which wasn’t purely anarchist, eventually failed because of problems with money. It went bankrupt. And, having accepted celibacy as a way of life, they, the Harmonists, died out.

I guess my point is, I cannot see human beings actually living up to anarchist philosophy. I know how untrustworthy I am, and I sincerely believe we all are. By the way, I think anarchy was tried among the first Christians who were in hiding for their lives; apparently, if Luke can be believed, they shared everything and did govern as a community. Well, they sure got away from that, didn’t they?

Please correct me if I’m wrong. I find discussions of ideas stimulating, and this one in particular because of my negative views on it for many, many years.

altlic:
... Anarcissie,
‘I don’t think E.J. Dionne was talking about mere rhetorical styles; I think he genuinely looks with relief to the opportunity to submit to an ever more powerful monarch, whose coercive powers will solve every problem, meet every need, and answer every question.  That this passion for submission to authority ever became assigned to liberalism and the Left is truly astonishing.’

Ever hear of something called participatory democracy? I notice that, like so many lefties, you are eager to point the finger at the bad guys, but you don’t explain a viable alternative. Yes, anarchy would be great, for about 2 weeks before all hell broke loose.

Yes, power structures are all about preserving their power, but how else does anything happen on a civic level? Puhlease!

Actually, I have suggested alternatives—see http://www.1freeworld.org/anaprax1.htm—and so have hundreds or thousands of other people.  Mine is really only a sketch; it didn’t elicit much interest, even critical interest, besides some genial joshing by right-wingers, so I never bothered expanding it.  If you have noticed that anarchists and other leftists don’t explain a viable alternative you have done some pretty odd noticing.

I have heard of participatory democracy and I do not understand why you mention it.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion, which (for me, anyway) has been E. J.  Dionne’s breathless anticipation of increased, increasingly centralized government (that is, ruling-class) power.  Nor do we observe any, except in the most remote fringes of our social order.  Serious people like Larry Summers, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm and their boss do not bother with such fluffy stuff.

There are theoretical reasons to believe that very large social structures can be brought into being without coercion, but they will be unfamiliar territory and hard going for those convinced of the necessity of monarchy and coercion, and it will probably be a waste of my time to expand upon them here, when so much has already run off like water from a duck’s back.

Spaghetti,
“Maybe the one good thing about propaganda is its self-evidence.  “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining” should be the lesson we’ve all learned from the years when people like George Bush figured we were all as stupid as he was.”

The bad thing about propaganda is that it works. Most people were fooled by Bush and we have all suffered because of it. Things have not changed to the point where “we won’t get fooled again”.

Anarcissie,
“I don’t think E.J. Dionne was talking about mere rhetorical styles; I think he genuinely looks with relief to the opportunity to submit to an ever more powerful monarch, whose coercive powers will solve every problem, meet every need, and answer every question.  That this passion for submission to authority ever became assigned to liberalism and the Left is truly astonishing.”

Ever hear of something called participatory democracy? I notice that, like so many lefties, you are eager to point the finger at the bad guys, but you don’t explain a viable alternative. Yes, anarchy would be great, for about 2 weeks before all hell broke loose.

Yes, power structures are all about preserving their power, but how else does anything happen on a civic level? Puhlease!

Having been out of work since last August and drawing unemployment compensation since then, I feel a need to respond in a particular way to Mel’s vacuous comment, but this isn’t the forum for four-letter words so I’ll restrain myself.  Reagan is dead, Mel; it’s a new age.  Get with the program, and try not to get laid off.  Asshole.  (Oops!)

Fifty million Americans cannot be wrong—-getting government assistance is the easiest way to survive. Most are blind, lame or disabled. The rest are homebodies that hate to get out of the bedroom or kitchen and travel to a job. Disabled and tired Americans are needed. They create millions of service jobs. Each welfare recipient must be fed, housed, and given medical attention. Food market employees, building maintenance workers, and doctors depend on the welfare recipient. Lets us not badmouth an essential part of the American economy.

Maybe the one good thing about propaganda is its self-evidence.  “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining” should be the lesson we’ve all learned from the years when people like George Bush figured we were all as stupid as he was.

Spaghetti—the era of propaganda is not ending.  As long as some people have little and others have a lot—of power, wealth, status, privilege—then propaganda will be necessary, because knowledge is power and one way the powerful stay powerful is by denying knowledge of the truth to those they rule.

What will change from time to time is the quality and flavor of the propaganda.  One of the discouraging things about the Bush years was the very low quality of propaganda we were offered.  It was insulting as well as boring.  I am looking forward to a significant improvement in quality.

Anarcissie, I think you’ve got it wrong, but not because you’re wrong about the power of rhetoric to change our perceptions.  Let’s just agree to call propaganda what it really is, and propaganda is what enabled the so-called “Reagan Revolution”.  If you look at Karl Rove, you see the essence of what Republicanism is and has been since Reagan:  a message of lies designed to divert attention away from what is toward some mythical conception of what people supposedly want, even if that isn’t what people really need.  I think the whole point of EJ’s column is that this era of applied bullshit—propaganda as a stand-in for real governance—may at last be ending.

Thank God, I really feel like our freedoms were hanging by a thread, under Bush. We were Just a nat’s eyebrow away from a Plutocratic Dictatorship.

And if their greed, ignorance, and incompetance hadn’t gotten in the way, we’d be sweating bullets under Jeb Bush right now.

spaghetti happens:
‘I believe what EJ meant, Tom, is that that era is over in which someone like Ronald Reagan can say “government is the problem” ...’

I don’t think E.J. Dionne was talking about mere rhetorical styles; I think he genuinely looks with relief to the opportunity to submit to an ever more powerful monarch, whose coercive powers will solve every problem, meet every need, and answer every question.  That this passion for submission to authority ever became assigned to liberalism and the Left is truly astonishing.

The Reagan years represented a rhetorical interregnum.  While Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton actually expanded the size and powers of the government, they said the opposite in order to exploit public dissatisfaction with the failures of government.  Government continued to fail.  The stories of the failures were turned upside down.  Now we are back to the open advocacy and celebration of subjection to power.  Somehow that has become what “progressive” means: progress toward dependency and submission.

Perhaps we should fully abandon the pretense of democracy, and go back to traditional, overt divine-right monarchy?  It would make things so much simpler.

I believe what EJ meant, Tom, is that that era is over in which someone like Ronald Reagan can say “government is the problem” often enough that people are convinced that, since government is an evil, we need to starve it with endless tax cuts—which remains the only arrow in the Republican quiver these days, as we saw with the Bobby Jindal speech this week.  Well, no taxes means no money for schools, roads, police and firefighters—you know, the things that make life decent in America.  Notice, too, that the “government is the problem” idea never seems to extend to the Defense Department; ergo, endless funding for all things military.

Obama will not perfect this government; of that I think everyone can be in agreement.  He will, however, dispel the notion that government cannot be administered in the way it was intended, which is as the manager of our national economy and infrastructure as well as the guarantor of our national defense.  What EJ says is over is the era of laizzes faire government—government which shouldn’t be expected to do anything for the people because it is fundamentally incompetent, and made so by useful idiots like George W. Bush.  This type of “government”, if you can even call it that, was never anything more than a green light for the erosion of our national infrastructure and looting of the treasury.  Thievery and malfeasance in plain sight.

You can go on bashing government all you want, Tom.  Just remember that without the kind of government Obama seems to be instituting we’ve basically got the law of the jungle—which was pretty much what the Republican party had in mind for us.

“President Obama’s message to the nation Tuesday night was plain and unequivocal: The era of bashing government is over.”

Not for me it’s not. Probably 90% or more of our representatives are power-hungry idiots. I’ll keep bashing thanks.

However, what the ruling class who actually operate the government want is power.  Their cost, their fuel, is exploitation of the people, and their benefit is domination.  That is their business.  I am not interested in seeing this business become more efficient.

~~~

In terms of the power to dominate anarcissie, neither do I, though I recognize the phenomena that you describe. It still doesn’t have anything to do with my point of how an administrative body operates most efficiently, in terms of the bureaucratic apparatus. However, since you also acknowledged that it is ‘we’ who do the work, understand that’s what I’m talking about when I speak of the government. The people who do the work, and that’s not the ruling class.

There’s a reason we refer to government operators as administrators, or an “Administration” because in my view, that’s what the government is supposed to do. They are supposed to administrate the business of the public, based on the blueprint designed to accomplish that. In our case, we have what is theoretically perceived as a Constitutional Republic, and that requires an effective and well oiled apparatus to at least provide for the logistics of how we get things done, including those of us who still work for each other, but are paid by the corporations instead of the government.

Indeed it is WE who ‘do the work’ and provide the services that we all depend on, and I DO depend on the people who keep the sewage separated from the rest of the environment, and I appreciate that there are medical facilities, educational facilities, means of transportation, and convenient sources of food and water, and electricity for me to stay in touch with all of you.

And since somebody has to work to provide these things for me/us, somebody has to pay them, and I expect the government to oversee all of that, to make sure it happens, and that it happens as efficiently as it can be managed.

So for ADMINISTRATORS of any entity, a practical knowledge of finance is imperative. It may be really boring to those who are ideologically inclined to just blow over all of that, but somebody has to pay attention to it. For me, (and I’m not alone) the practicality of the matter is that the government DOES administer and provide services every month. I’m waiting on my SS check right now, along with several million others. If for some reason that doesn’t happen, (for the several million of us); like say the folks at the SSA just didn’t get around to it, or their system goes down and they can’t distribute these funds, that would be problematic. Just as it is problematic for those living in states with Governors who have declined unemployment benefits for their citizens. That may in fact be an example of the domination of the ‘ruling class’…Jindal gets up there and makes a total fool of himself, refusing any relief for the victims in his state…victims of the ruling class that is.

And, it really doesn’t matter, (at least as a practical matter) that the money I’m waiting for them to dole out is actually my own, having paid into the system for this many years. If I don’t get it, I still don’t get it, and we the people are paying our government to stay on top of such operations.

I think they should, and I think they should do it as efficiently as possible. I think the government bureaucracy, (made up of my fellow citizens) would do a far better job at taking care of my banking, health care, and any ‘insurance’ coverage that I need, and I’d rather pay them - than a private ‘for profit’ entity to do it. Personal experience tells me that they do a better job, and it saves trillions of dollars.

As I recall, the previous administration, headed up by a so-called MBA, told us from the get-go that they were going to run government like a business.  Not a bad idea as far as it went, except that President Dipshit did indeed run the government like he ran his own businesses:  into the ground.

No, government is not a business, certainly not a corporation.  But government can heed to traditional business practices like accountability, sensible budgeting, and transparency—none of which the Bush administration seemed to be interested in and all of which, let us pray, the Obama administration will.

cyrena:
‘Except that it’s supposed to operate as one, at least in terms of EFFICIENTLY providing for the needs of the population. ...’.

The government does not provide for the needs of the population.  The needs of the population are provided for by working people, most of whom do not work for the government except in the sense of paying taxes and other charges levied by the government.

People debate about what the government is supposed to do, but historically the function of the government has been to maintain the state.  The state is a monopoly hierarchy of social coercion, whatever else it may do.  In other words, the function of the government is to order things according to the interests, prejudices and beliefs of the state’s ruling class, using whatever force may be necessary.  That is the central business of the government.

Efficiency is the proportion of benefit, desired effect, to cost.  An engine which converts half the energy potential of its fuel into orderly mechanical energy is said to be 50% efficient: the fuel use is the cost, and the mechanical energy is the desired good.  The goods desired from the government, from the state are, however, vigorously debated and generally contradictory.  Some want peace, others wealth, others virtue.  However, what the ruling class who actually operate the government want is power.  Their cost, their fuel, is exploitation of the people, and their benefit is domination.  That is their business.  I am not interested in seeing this business become more efficient.

By Anarcissie, February 27 at 10:26 pm #

Except the government is not supposed to be a business.

~~~

Except that it’s supposed to operate as one, at least in terms of EFFICIENTLY providing for the needs of the population.

Of course since most of us have never witnessed the government in that mode, (I wasn’t born until after the New Deal was initiated) maybe we just don’t understand that the use of standard business practices is required in the successful operation of ANY entity, and most certainly the government.

So if the government shouldn’t incorporate standard business practices, do you think these are appropriate to ANY entity?

Just curious…

Mr.Obama, in one months time, has already shown more leadership than the
last three jefes combined.
This is a true visionary!
Remember the power of Grass Roots Democracy!!
Continue to make your voices heard and stay involved…..

Except the government is not supposed to be a business.

If Obama is right—and I think he is—his deficit spending will be the governmental equivalent of borrowing to finance a new business.  The business takes off and you pay back the loan.  In this case, we’re borrowing to finance nothing less than the restructuring of the American economy and infrastructure.  Seems simple to me.

~~~

Topsy,

I’m inclined to agree..naif that I am…

I think that it really IS this simple.

“Tuesday night he offered the most comprehensive manifesto yet for his new rendezvous with America’s progressive tradition. “We will rebuild,” he declared, “we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.” If he is right, he will also have rebuilt American liberalism.”

You really think this was comprehensive anything? except metaphors?  Really? Is that so? Are you smoking something?

Now for some real fun…

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-grills-bernanke-2/

If anyone is interested, we had a severe recession in 1921 which created a severe deflationary economy. It was over in a year because the government stepped in and helped. President Harding put Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover in change of seeing what government could do, and a committee of about 300 prominent industrialist, bankers, and labor representatives were called to Washington to discuss what could be done. The result was financial aid to the unemployed, stimulus for public works projects, and in itself became a watershed of federal policy for future depressions and unemployment problems.

It is true the government was minimally involved, but the market did not solve the recession alone. Government, even a staunch Republican government, stepped in and helped. By comparison, the 1921 recession was a cake walk to our recession now, which in appearance resembles the Great Depression.

Perhaps if government had stepped in more, the Great Depression, which started nine years later, would never have happened or would have not been as severe. Also, if Hoover and the government had not stood by in 1929, did nothing, and depended on the market to save the economy, it might have been over in a shorter period of time. We’ll never know.

Fascist is a very poor and inaccurate word to use to describe anything our government is doing. Unless you have lived under fascism, you do not understand. You haven’t the faintest clue what it is to live under a fascist government where the breath you breathe is controlled by government. We are not there now, nor, I dare say, ever have been.

To Mr. Blackspeare, World War II did end the Great Depression. If you believe it did not, I would love to see proof that it did not. In 1938-1940, industrial production was way down, the Dust Bowel had destroyed our greatest farmland, and had it not been for the war and forced production of war machines, no telling how long recovery would have taken. We’ll never know if Roosevelt’s New Deal would have worked because of the war, but I believe it would have eventually. I support Obama in his attempt to emulate the New Deal, and let us pray no new war of the kind WWII was intervenes.

•  “Obama’s rhetoric is soothing and his approach is inclusive. But he is proposing nothing less than an ideological transformation…”

Indeed….
And, I think it’s the subtly that EJ mentioned as well, that might be preventing some folks from seeing this. But the fact of the matter is that he IS (and always has actually) proposing nothing less than an ideological transformation.

This is still confusing some people. I’m not particularly confused, though I am curious about a few things that he’s doing in terms of foreign policy. (and I’m guessing there hasn’t been enough time to see the fruits of those decisions yet, or that they are still in the consideration process).
Still, as far as the recovery of the US based on an ideological transformation – to a 21st Century version of liberalism, (as we all know and love it) is concerned…this is what I expected to see from Barack Obama, once he managed to acquire the appropriate tools to accomplish it.

So far, I’m even more impressed than I expected to be.

Blackspeare seems to have forgotten our ONE Trillion Dollar, X-rated (for extra-legal) movie, “Iraq War” - produced, directed and starring our previous Republican Administration: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. And that production didn’t produce one mile of highway, one mile of railroad track, one home, one college dormitory, or one health clinic in the United States. And only 4,200 innocent U.S. soldiers, and who knows how many innocent Iraqis, died in the making of that movie.

(Oh, and by the way…let’s please end the myth that “World War II ended the Depression - not Roosevelt’s measures.)

Republicans love to trot out the tired “Big Government” banner whenever Democrats propose any spending. Yet under the Bush admin, the Dept of Homeland Security became the largest govenrment beauracracy in our history.

Noecons are spitting fire over this enormous spending which is intended to create new green jobs and rebuild our country so that we can compete in the world of the future. Yet they had no qualms spending hundreds of billions on an illegal war in Iraq.

I’m not dazzled by star-power or dumbstruck by oratory. I’m simply impressed with the intellect and vision of the man we elected.

I felt like my trust in government was completely shot - and hopeless.  I still feel a little like that, but I think that Obama is doing some things to regain my trust.  There’s a great essay on restoring our faith in democracy and the steps that Obama would need to take to really engage the listening of the public in an essay called “Capturing Democracy’s Surge” in the new book Thinking Big.  A bunch of progressive policy think tanks are behind the book, very impressive list of groups.  Anyway, after reading this I realized that transparency is what I NEED in my government - and no Obama isn’t doing that 100%, but compare whitehouse.gov to how it was during the Bush administration…

Reason may finally prevail.  Prediction: After Obama’s second term people will be begging Congress to overturn the 22nd Amendment and let him run again (he won’t).

E.J. Dionne:
’... Yet at the same time, he has sought, subtly but unmistakably, to alter the nation’s political assumptions, its attitudes toward collective action and its view of government. Obama’s rhetoric is soothing and his approach is inclusive. But he is proposing nothing less than an ideological transformation. ...’

I can’t say as I see much of that.  People in general maintain a number of contradictory or paradoxical beliefs about the government, such as that it always does wrong and yet should be called upon to solve almost every problem, public and private.  Both the ideology of laissez-faire free markets and of bureaucratic social democracy are by now old, well known, and lovingly maintained in spite of their monumental failures.  So where’s the ideological transformation?

Oh boy, government spending at pace never before seen in the history of the US even accounting for inflation! The government mint is gonna be working overtime.  Next up ahead is inflation on a scale never before seen in the history of the US even accounting for inflation!  Roosevelt had a war to get the US out of the economic doldrum what will Obama have.  If its just inflation Obama is a one-term president.