From Lee Smolin: "A question no longer being asked is how to make the next step in the evolution of a democratic society. Until very recently it was widely understood that democracy was a project with many steps, whose goal was the eventual construction of a perfectly just and egalitarian society. But recently, with the well-deserved collapse of Marxism, it has begun to seem that the highest stage of civilization we humans can aspire to is global capitalism leavened by some version of a bureaucratic welfare state, all governed badly by an unwieldy and corrupt representative democracy. This is better than many of the alternatives, but it is hardly egalitarian and often unjust; those of us who care about these values must hope that human ingenuity is up to the task of inventing something still better. It is proper that the nineteenth century idea of utopia has finally been put to rest, for that was based on a paradox, which is that any predetermined blueprint for an ideal society could only be imposed by force. It is now almost universally acknowledged that there is no workable alternative to the democratic ideal that governments get their authority by winning the consent of the governed. This means that if we are to change society, it must be by a process of evolution rather than revolution. But why should this mean that big changes are impossible? What is missing are new ideas, and a context to debate them."

3 Comments:
Hi, I just stumbled upon your blog (or the 11 things that fill me with awe). Great stuff!
The comment I have for this piece here about being doomed to corrupt democracy is "Hey, what about Plato's Republic?"
It's a great idea, but it's never been tried. Briefly, raise a brood of rulers who are beyond economic influences. Tired of corruption? Tired of trying to properly motivate people for Good? How to move beyond our capitalistic constraints? Looking for a STTNG kind of future?
I think there's lots of good ideas around that have never been tried.
By Anonymous, at 2:40 PM
I agree that Marxism was based on a paradoxe but find that capitalism may face the same predicament. The law of capitalism states, at its base, that the good of the individual results in the good of the collectivity. We know, however, that this collectivity excludes a great portion of the population? However, conversely, power given is no power at all. This is why programs like social security do nothing but widen the gap between the haves and the have nots on a federal and global level.
I believe that native american culture has much to offer us in this area... respect for elders, respect for women, spirituality and respect for the collectivity. Can these values be adapted to the modern world? If so, many problems could be solved.
By MegaP, at 7:59 PM
There are no new ideas about human society; everything has already been tried. We don't need new forms of human societies; we need to stick to those proven to be viable over the long term.
The only viable human society is one that operates within natural biological and geophysical limitations at the local level. Forget about global society; there's no such thing. Forget about the "global economy." It's a new idea that has no relevance in a world of finite resources.
The only economy that can be maintained indefinitly is local production for local consumption. Any attempt at economies of larger scale always result in one group being exploited to benefit another group.
The only social system that can be maintained indefinietly is anarchy: no rulers, no central state, local self-reliance and self-rule, mutual aid organized on a bioregional basis.
Human societies existed for 10,000 years of more based on anarchistic bioregional organization. It is only within the last 500 years that attempts have been made, and failed, to build global economies.
By Hayduke, at 3:56 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home