Response to a twitter question - not a real blog, but the subject needed a bit more space!
It could easily be a dissertation question, so complex and involved could be the response! I don't have quite that amount of time to spend so here's the potted version of how I see the answer:
It's not a particularly satisfying answer (for you or me) but I do feel that democracy and capitalism are the 'least worst' options that we have, as a species, found as a system of functioning successfully, to date.
They're clearly not perfect which suggests that they are probably not always mutually beneficial, but that they are beneficial more often, more reliably, than other systems, most notably, socialism or communism.
And by 'mutually' I am reading - 'good for everyone/most people'??
The two are almost inextricably linked but I'll take them separately to start with:
I think the tone of the question - responding as it did to a tweet of mine about how the French Economy Minister regarded Democracy (not very highly at all) - suggests that the questioner doubts the universal value of democracy and that, in some cases there is an argument for 'clever leaders' to take decisions in the best interests of their nations instead of allowing 'stupid common people' to make the decision in a democratic way.
Please don't take offence at these short-hand terms - they are used to explain quickly rather than offend - otherwise you'll just be reading caveats all day long!
And there is some truth in this - that 'the great unwashed' cannot be allowed to take all decisions in a democracy - they need some guidance and there needs to be some influence from higher up the intellectual ladder and on the basis of getting people involved who understand how the system works and have more experience to bring to bear on the decision/situation.
If we had a pure democracy in the UK for example, Daily Mail readers would probably ensure that we would bring back the death penalty. This hasn't happened because there are filters (people) in place to stop some of the more extreme - but often highly popular - issues being decided in a purely democratic way.
It's a balance - and one which doesn't always work perfectly but as I say 'least worst' is probably the best we can say about it.
For example, creating a society in which a majority of people are dependent upon the state (ring any bells?) so that future democratic elections will always return one party over the other, would arguably be democratic, but it would be so in a rigged way which wouldn't work in terms of fairness or in reality.
The other side of this 'intelligence argument' also potentially throws up all sorts of nasty possibilities and eugenics - not allowing stupid people to procreate etc - best not to go there, but it does, if taken to the ultimate end - which again, is why the Democracy we have is probably the best we have come up with to date.
Most successful businesses are 'benign dictatorships' with a single person or small group making all the decisions and imposing this on their workforce/ It is very successful - much more so than a democratic committee-based system. But it is not inclusive enough in my view to operate effectively on a national government basis.
On the other hand - and finally, on democracy - the system I describe above does sometimes lead to the situation where the people who supposedly work for us, stop doing so and start working for themselves or that there is a bigger agenda that can come into operation which reduces the democratic involvement of people too much - and goes too far the other way.
I attach a couple of past blogs here and here - to illustrate this point.
Regarding capitalism I think it has proved itself to be the most effective system we have - others have tried, been given a pretty good go for long periods of time and have ultimately failed in my view.
I think it stinks in many ways, but as I say it stinks less than other systems. I think it treats people as farm animals in many ways, but looking at it from an objective 'does it work' viewpoint, it gets people out of bed, to a productive lifestyle, gets things done from law enforcement to street cleaning and food production, and does so fairly efficiently and in a way which also tries and usually succeeds in looking after people who are unable to work or ill or too old to be productive so that they have dignity too.
It sometimes fails in this regard, but it is not designed to - this is not an intrinsic failing of the system.
I would argue that we are not actually operating in a true capitalist system at the moment and haven't been since at least 2008. If we were doing so we should have let the banks fail (I think that is what we should have done) and whilst it would have been a massive shock to the system, we would have come out the other end by now (like Iceland has) and we would all be much better off - and the system would not, once again (in my opinion) be creaking and on the brink of another crisis (which I think is coming).
I also think printing money (quantitative easing) is a massive mistake and will ultimately come back to haunt us at some stage in the future.
And there you have my initial thoughts in response to your question. Hope it's of interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment