What does a study of history tell us about wealth and power?(2)

To study history reveals that most people suffered grievously for centuries from the ambitions of the powerful and privileged. History gives us no reason to believe that the wealthy and powerful care about the non-wealthy and less powerful. They live in totally different worlds, roughly, the upper class and the underclass. They meet only as people of the underclass serve the upperclass, as slaves and servants, as fodder for wars of glory, as workers to run the world for the wealthy. Such is most of history.

(Vocabulary issue: what words should be used? The Haves and the Have-nots? The Upperclass and the Underclass? The Rich and the Poor? The Takers and the Givers? The 1% and the 99%? The Oppressors and the Oppressed? The Privileged and the not-Privileged? The Wealthy and the not-Wealthy? The Powerful and the not-Powerful?)

The United States offers an exception to this history. It was created by many Have-nots, people from the underclass who risked all to leave hopelessness behind and begin again. Then, when time came to formalize a structure for society, the intent was that everyone should have the same opportunities.

This level playing field is essential because it makes possible the existence of a strong and vibrant middle class--neither wealthy nor poor. It means that the ambitions, the talents, the education of all the people can be released, to serve those individuals, to serve the community, and the nation. This came about in the United States. Not perfectly, but better than in any known society up to its creation.

This was amazing! Such a government had not been seen before. That it actually came into being awakened the admiration and the hopes of the oppressed everywhere. For a time, the vision made concrete in the American Constitution served well.

What does a study of history tell us about wealth and power? (1)

Popular dogma says that the past is done and has no usefulness for the present or the future. Everything is new and different today: technology, science, values, … each individual can create his or her life without having to pay attention to past lessons. It is better to reinvent the wheel in each generation than to have to learn about the past.

Nevertheless, not everyone subscribes to this empty picture of reality.

Why do some people believe that it is useful to study history? Here are some thought to ponder:

We study history to give perspective, an understanding about the past, what people have done and thought and lived through.

We study history to give us an understanding of things that are outside of our own experience.

What does it mean to say: Neither government nor the market??

This is not an easy notion to deal with, but at its core this is a statement of balance, necessary balance between the power of government and the power of the market, in order to defend the freedom of all.

There is no real problem understanding that government can abuse its power, although we need to see a much more analytical study of how the American government is abusive. According to the Constitution the American government is meant to serve all the people. What is the nature of abuses here? 

Understanding that the market can also be abusive is less clear, because, after all, isn’t the market made up of thousands if not millions of small businesses? Oh, yes, and a few corporations too. There is no single body, as in government, having enough power to be abusive.


Is there not?

That single body is money. It links together the interests of businesses and corporations, manipulating a vast web of laws and taxes and regulations and obligations set up to maintain a level field for all, business, customers, the public, but which can be exploited to concentrate power and to support the acquisitiveness of that power.

So the permanent struggle is that of balance between government and the market. Creating that balance is not self-evident; balance, for better or worse, can be defined in varying ways. Yet the effort, the trying, is always necessary, because when there is no  counterweight, there is dictatorship.

As private citizens, as consumers, as human beings living in society, we need the goods and services provided by the market, and we need the various protections provided by government. We definitely do not need the kind of society created by the merging of government and the market into one body.

We need a working and fair balance between government and the market.

What are alternatives to Democracy?
Alternatives might be one-party government or multiparty government. Some forms of “one-party” government that are alternatives to democracy: despotism, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism, Communism, monocracy, autocracy, plutocracy. Several forms of “multiparty” government as alternatives are also noted:  representative government, elective government; self-government, government by the people; republic, commonwealth.

The controlling difference is that in a “one-party” government the ruling person or group does not have to yield to the needs or wants of any other person or group. It has absolute power. No dialogue or compromise is necessary.

Whereas a “multiparty” government must constantly strive to reconcile what are often conflicting interests.

I have heard a quote something to the effect that “Americans are indentured servants to the state.” It suggests the view that the state, the government, in our country imposes a unique value system on everyone. Another view might be that “Americans are indentured servants to the market,” meaning that the market imposes a unique value system. Whatever validity there might be in either or both views needs to be clarified, unemotionally, because in truth, neither is desirable.

Neither the government nor the market is qualified to determine all standards for the lives of everyone.

Obviously, democracy is not perfect. It does not solve all problems. Why then do we consider it so important?

Because the alternatives are worse. Democracy means power shared between contrasting values, not power in the hands of a single idea. Value is lost when a single power imposes its will, and ideas about how to live become a system that never negotiates outcomes. When there is no dialogue, when compromise is refused, there is tyranny.

We are all humans, not perfect. To have a world in which each individual can work out a place, there must be limits to power: constraints. Some constraints are harmful, such as ignorance, lack of perspective, and inability to think conceptually. But other constraints: responsibility, discipline and authority, can be managed for the good. With constant vigilance!

These are lessons that have been learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, over and over again, in the course of human history.

This observation made by Justice Brandeis  can often be seen on the web; it is not unknown:

We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
                    (As quoted by Raymond Lonergan in Mr. Justice Brandeis, Great American (1941), p. 42.)

Is it true that we can’t have both? Why can’t we have both wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, and democracy?

Fundamentally it is a question of power. Wealth gives power, and power can be infinitely creative in finding ways to impose itself no matter how others are affected: the power to treat people justly or not, the power to make decisions about the community without community input, the power to create jobs or not, the power to influence “elected” officials, the power to refuse dialogue and compromise, the power to impose one’s beliefs, the power to, in many other ways, make life difficult for others through economic manipulation and disrespect for needs of others.

Nevertheless, power can be used to help others, and sometimes is.

Uncontrolled power is the opposite of dialogue and compromise. It refuses to respect the wishes and needs of others, it does not accept limits to self-centeredness. People count on the values represented by democracy for protection.