For quite some time, I have noticed that there seems to be a change within our nation and globally. The change is really a restructuring of our current system; the Republic. I have at times, said it is the shift to more centralized government, which i still believe it is. I have also thought, that it could be the promise of Marx of the communist revolution, which now I don't think so. But I haven't been able to wrap my mind around who and what were their motives for a change of Republics. It wasn't until I read the words from Maurice Strong. "Maurice F. Strong, (born April 29, 1929, in Oak Lake, Manitoba) is one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations' involvement in world affairs. Supporters consider him one of the world's leading environmentalists. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit and first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Strong has played a critical role in globalizing the environmental movement." This is just a background of who the guy is. This is what he said at the Rio Conference in 1992 that industrial countries have
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
After reading this, it then clicked for me. The recent movements and changes in our government since the beginning of the 20th century have been the actions of the upper-class. Strong attacks the middle class as the main cause of global warming. We talked about this unsustainable life-style before and both dan and nathan believe there needs to be sacrifices. To take on a marxist point-of-view, the major issues like global warming, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on poverty are tools used in the over all struggle between the upper and middle classes. But it isn't between the poor and upper-classes. Since 1789 the middle-class has controlled the major governments. It has been the middle-class that has built-up europe and america and suppressed the upper-class. And it is now the rockerfellers and louis XVIs of this age that are trying to regain their power. Interestingly the poor have been left out of this, again.
By taxation, the upper-class can push the middle-class down while keeping the poor still poor. Higher energy costs would hurt only the middle and lower classes. By adding regulations on development it hurts those with less capital to begin with and therefore creating a road block for starter companies; only the wealthy could afford the risk. By creating boarderless nations, the elites can then higher lower-wage workers or take their business elsewhere without the worry of tariffs and trade regulations. By this shift in power from the Republics to centralized governments the middle-class and lower-class would be left out of the process.
This kind of sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I really don't think it is. For the longest time I have been trying to put my finger on what is going on in the world. There is a change going on. Something different than a Republic is moving.
To continue with Strong, although there are many in his position that feel the same way, he writes this in an Essay titled, Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation,
"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."
The last sentence lays out the battle plan.
This post is a little different from the others, but I feel it is the attack of the old kings on our sacred and holy Republic. I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe you can calm my nerves. Again this post is not a debate about global warming, it is a debate on the struggle between the classes and who is winning and who is losing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well i am certainly glad i took the time to read this post. It was incredibly interesting. I really enjoyed your thoughts and would love to hear you put together a more nuanced assessment of the situation.
ReplyDeletehere are some of my thoughts:
it is hard to make a clean distinction between upper and middle class. Depending on where you draw the line i might agree or disagree. I might agree that the middle class has controlled the government since the creation of the constitution if we are talking about strictly numbers. What i mean is, at a state level i think there are a lot of people from the middle class who are in government but the farther up you climb in the chain of command the less and less middle class people you are going to find. Only 4 senators are worth less than $100,000 and they of course make close to $200,000. Definately not middle class numbers the way i draw the line but i don't think i've ever seen a standardized designation between the two classes.
i feel like when you crunch the numbers (if that can actually be done for what i am going to say), the MC is not and has not been able to sustain an "oppressive" hold over the UC. No doubt the MC has had moments in western history when they have succeeded in usurping the power from the UC but it has always been temporary. There is no longer a monarchy but the number of UC people in high offices have been overwhelmingly larger than that of the MC.
I would agree that the MC has had the largest impact on global warming but i think that a statement like that reflects numbers more than it reflects living habits. That is of course not to say that the MC have better habits of consumption. i don't think that is true. It is to say that there are more of them, period.
In conclusion, i think that the UC is winning and has been winning since 1789 (and earlier). I think that our current system, that is within the last 50 years (since the Nixon/Kennedy debate), the wealthiest person has the greatest chance of winning. not just the presidential race but any seat. If i am not mistaken, it is fairly well documented that most of the time, the person who spends more money wins the election. In conclusion, if i were an UCer, i would buy a 1939 indian scout motorcycle. Furthermore, in conclusion, Power to the People!
glad that you thought it wasn't too far out there. There just seems to be something going on and I could never put it together, and now I think I have a better understanding of the shift in national and international politics.
ReplyDeleteit is very hard to draw a line between middle, upper and lower classes. Between each class there is this huge gray line. I think the best way to put it is, the upper-class is wealthy and could never lose their riches, while the middle class is rich, but could lose their money. And the lower-class has no money reserved to have any form of wealth. It is better to say classes are more like conditions than real numbers.
So I would say the middle-class are those that have money saved, educated, and own a home. (I'm sure you could add more to that list). So someone could be in the middle-class who is lower management, or a lawyer, doctor, business owner (any job that you need an education for).
The French Revolution and the American Independence were middle-class movements. Republics are based on middle-class values. I think you are absulutely right about how the local and state levels of government are more middle-class while the national government is more upper. The beginning of the Republic was more based on state rights than national. The "united" part of the USA, wasn't capitalized until later, and I think that says a lot. Since there has been this shift from the states to the national government there has been the shift of power from the MC to the UC.
Corporation are another factor in this shift. I have no problem with corporation, but I do have a problem with a top heavy corporation. Corporations are business owned by many to lower the risk of business, but it seems corporations have centeralized, a prime example is Enron.
Art has also become another factor in this shift to the upper-class. Now it is almost impossable to make it unless you have gone through disney or your parents are already in the art world. Jazz had a grassroots start. So did the blues, and rock, and rap, punk, and grunge. But in the last two decades nothing in the music world has come out that is from the People.
I might have gotten a little of the topic, but what I'm saying is that there has been this slow shift from the middle to the upper classes.
And if the UC gains control again, we will have "monarch" style governments. Already people look to obama as a father figure, who can help his children. king louis XIV say himself as the father of the french people. When the UC has control their reason for control is that the People just don't know what they want. "I know what's best for this country".
I feel like I'm all over the place here. sorry. I'm just thinking out loud. The stronger the national government gets, the less room there is. It sets the condition for only a few to rule many. We are seeing the fall of the middle-class and the rebirth of the upper-class.
i agree with you in most of your assertions. the problems i have is the idea that the american revolution was a middle class movement or even if it was, that it was a middle class institution since its inception. I agree on the point that it was a MC movement. The great muscle of the movement was the american MC and probably the LC as well. But when it came time to establish a government, the UC were the only ones qualified. I feel like especially early on, the wealthy were the ones who were in power. Because of the difference in the education level of people, thats the only way it really could have been. But it hasn't changed since then.
ReplyDeleteThe separation you make between the classes may work for our current society but they are anachronistic when applied to the founders for instance. Societal standards and conditions were different than ours and so i don't think that the same standard can apply. They were almost all (if not all) extremely well educated which in my understanding means they were probably UC people. That is not to say that they wrote the constitution to protect their wealth or anything of that matter. It is just that in the conditions of Colonial America, the wealthy were the best educated and so the most capable to lead.