Enlightened Conflict

iroquois and democracy (and the American constitution)

March 1st, 2013

Well.iriquois eagle-dollar-bill

The American Constitution is one of my favorite well written documents … so when I read in a book the idea that much of it was ‘borrowed’ from the Iroquois Indians … in fact that “we the people” was borrowed … that lit a fire under my ass to do some research.

I knew it had borrowed significantly from the ‘best of the best’ European & Greek/Roman democratic principals but I had not heard about the Iroquois.

In initial research I actually discovered a physical symbol first.

The 13 arrows <for the 13 colonies> bound together in the eagle talons.

 

-          Iroquois constitution Article 57:

Five arrows shall be bound together very strong and each arrow shall represent one nation. As the five arrows are strongly bound this shall symbolize the complete union of the nations. Thus are the Five Nations united completely and enfolded together, united into one head, one body and one mind. Therefore they shall labor, legislate and council together for the interest of future generations.

 

iriquois arrowsThe Iroquois used the arrows bound together. And they refer to ‘nations’ as we would ‘states.’

Well.

Further research showed that the committee tasked with developing the constitution struggled with how to formalize so many items being discussed into one document that would satisfy one and all. Samuel Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years.

While there were many desirable  models <and aspects within> from ancient and modern histories in Western & Eastern Europe and the Middle East it seemed that the Iroquois had a system which provided a basic national/state construct to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates.

<I did not know this>

Now.

I never did find “we the people” backed up in what writings there are concerning the ancient Iroquois.

But.

I DID find enough evidence to convince me that the Iroquois certainly influenced the drafting of the American Constitution … and we present-day Americans owe these Native Americans big thanks.

Some background on the Iroquois and their Constitution.

In about 1715, the Tuscarora Nation, once part of the Iroquois peoples in a much earlier period of their history, moved up from North Carolina to avoid warfare with the invading white settlers, and were adopted into the Confederacy. At this point in time, the Iroquois controlled many parts of our now eastern states from their homelands in what is now New York state. The original Five Nations were:

 

Mohawk: People Possessors of the Flint

Onondaga: People on the Hills

Seneca: Great Hill People

Oneida: Granite People

Cayuga: People at the Mucky Land

Tuscarora: Shirt Wearing People <became the Sixth Nation>.

 

I am including the most relevant aspects of their original Constitution <as best it can be reconstructed from legend and spoken history> which is titled: The Constitution of the Five Nations – or – The Iroquois Book of the Great Law.

Well.

It is pretty amazing. You can find close parallels to our Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of government as originally described in our U. S. Constitution as well as many of the ‘freedoms’ and some verbiage. In addition if you assume their Nations as our current States the parallels increase significantly. I have not included the entire thing <I believe it has close to 100 articles> but just some relevant portions that make for good reading.

Oh.

I included the first section hoping that maybe someone in our current government would read this. It is a good reminder for what should be expected of elected officials <one could only hope they would actually follow some of the thinking … sigh …. Article 27, in particular, should be posted everywhere in Washington DC>.

 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IROQUOIS NATIONSamerica one heartbeat

 

24. The Lords of the Confederacy of the Five Nations shall be mentors of the people for all time. The thickness of their skin shall be seven spans — which is to say that they shall be proof against anger, offensive actions and criticism. Their hearts shall be full of peace and good will and their minds filled with a yearning for the welfare of the people of the Confederacy. With endless patience they shall carry out their duty and their firmness shall be tempered with a tenderness for their people. Neither anger nor fury shall find lodgement in their minds and all their words and actions shall be marked by calm deliberation.

 

25. If a Lord of the Confederacy should seek to establish any authority independent of the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of the Great Peace, which is the Five Nations, he shall be warned three times in open council, first by the women relatives, second by the men relatives and finally by the Lords of the Confederacy of the Nation to which he belongs. If the offending Lord is still obdurate he shall be dismissed by the War Chief of his nation for refusing to conform to the laws of the Great Peace. His nation shall then install the candidate nominated by the female name holders of his family.

 

26. It shall be the duty of all of the Five Nations Confederate Lords, from time to time as occasion demands, to act as mentors and spiritual guides of their people and remind them of their Creator’s will and words.

Every Confederate Lord shall speak words to promote peace.

 

27. All Lords of the Five Nations Confederacy must be honest in all things. They must not idle or gossip, but be men possessing those honorable qualities that make true royaneh. It shall be a serious wrong for anyone to lead a Lord into trivial affairs, for the people must ever hold their Lords high in estimation out of respect to their honorable positions.

 

-          Freedom of Religion

99. The rites and festivals of each nation shall remain undisturbed and shall continue as before because they were given by the people of old times as useful and necessary for the good of men.

 

-          Rights of the People

93. Whenever a specially important matter or a great emergency is presented before the Confederate Council and the nature of the matter affects the entire body of the Five Nations, threatening their utter ruin, then the Lords of the Confederacy must submit the matter to the decision of their people and the decision of the people shall affect the decision of the Confederate Council. This decision shall be a confirmation of the voice of the people.

 

-          Rights of states <Nations>

Before the real people united their nations, each nation had its council fires. Before the Great Peace their councils were held. The five Council Fires shall continue to burn as before and they are not quenched. The Lords of each nation in future shall settle their nation’s affairs at this council fire governed always by the constitution american-flag-all-rights-reserved-by-jade-leyvalaws and rules of the council of the Confederacy and by the Great Peace.

 

-          Commander in chief: Rights and Powers of War

79. Skanawatih shall be vested with a double office, duty and with double authority. One-half of his being shall hold the Lordship title and the other half shall hold the title of War Chief. In the event of war he shall notify the five War Chiefs of the Confederacy and command them to prepare for war and have their men ready at the appointed time and place for engagement with the enemy of the Great Peace.

——–

Well.

This is good stuff. Research well worth the time I invested <the entire Constitution is fascinating in it’s detail>.

Native Americans <or Indians> not only were the original settlers in America but helped provide some of the original founding father thinking. And, frankly, some good thinking for us today if we actually were to pay attention to it.

This is continuing proof that I still have a lot to learn.

middle east thought for the day

November 18th, 2012

I read so much hate from people … mostly directed toward Israel, who do not even live in the Middle East, with regard to what is happening between Israel and Palestine.

How we have reached a point where we seem to be on the brink of a conventional on-the-ground war has been decades in the making.

One of which I have written about several times but suffice it to say Israel is on a geographic island surrounded by an ocean of people who would prefer Jews not have a country there <for some reasonable reasons … Muslim holy land … and some unreasonable reasons … Judaism is not a viable faith>.

I truly struggle with what I would do if I were in a decision making role with regard to going to ground war.

That is until I came across a visual posted by a teenager who I sense was also struggling with perspective.

The teen gave me perspective.

When I saw this graph I immediately starting thinking that for all those comments I have read about Israel being aggressive and ‘killers’ I wanted to jump online find the Israel haters and say “is it possible they are the most patient resilient country in the world?”

If anybody believes your own country wouldn’t have brought the wrath of Khan down on the missile shooters <on the ground, in the air and by water if they could find any> after looking at the chart I want whatever it is you are smoking.

It would have all been over by now if it were any of us.

Iran says rural white US would rather have a beer with President of Iran Ahmadinejad than Obama

September 28th, 2012

Iran says rural white US voters would rather have a beer or go to a baseball game with President of Iran Ahmadinejad than Barack Obama

This is awesome.

You can’t make this shit up.

Well.  You actually can. The Onion did <the original story>.

And then the Iranian news agency Fars used the Onion article as actual news.

Yup. The satirical newspaper’s claim that Americans would rather hang out with Ahmadinejad over Obama was taken seriously in Tehran.

Wow. I guess my first question would be “did USA ratings of approval improve after the story?”

By the way … the original Onion article is a brilliant piece of satirical creative writing  (the Onion original: http://www.theonion.com/articles/gallup-poll-rural-whites-prefer-ahmadinejad-to-oba,29677/). The quote was an inspired idea and the use of a research source brilliant.

The article was beside the other fascinating piece <which I am surprised wasn’t also used .. “George W Bush Returns To America After Spending 4 Years In The Himalayas.”>

This is awesome stuff.

Here is the Guardian story <because they are better writers than I>:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is extremely popular in the US, according to Tehran’s Fars news agency (and the Onion).

So the white, rural gun-toting conspiracy theorists were right.

Put a secret Muslim president in the White House and next thing you know America’s in bed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Except, according to Tehran’s Fars news agency, it is white rural Americans who are big fans of the Iranian president. They like him much more than Barack Obama.

In an article which has now been removed from the Fars feed, the news agency reported that 77% of rural white US voters said they’d rather have a beer or go to a baseball game with the anti-Semitic Iranian leader than their own president.

“I like him better,” Fars reported West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski as saying. “He takes national defense seriously, and he’d never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does.”

Fars also reported that according to the same Gallup poll, 60% of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn’t try to hide the fact that he’s Muslim.

Fars doesn’t say where it got its story but it seems to have missed out the equally exciting reports alongside the original: “George W Bush Returns To America After Spending 4 Years In The Himalayas”, “Neil Armstrong’s Wife Glad To Finally Get Rid Of All The Space Hobby Crap” and “DC Residents Can Remember Exactly Who They Were Murdering When Nationals Clinched First Ever Playoff Berth”.

For the Fars report is almost word for word copied from the satirical magazine The Onion.

But then, if you’re sitting in Tehran reporting the pronouncements of the Holocaust-denying Iranian leadership, George Bush hiding in the Himalayas may not seem so far-fetched.

Side note.

This may explain some things about Iran.

Anyway.

I wonder if Iran is interviewing New York PR agencies to help with their image?

israel and crazy horse

September 26th, 2012

This may be a crazy perspective but I am going to talk about Israel … and Crazy Horse. Not just so I can type something because I am bored but I actually have a point for my readers to think about.

I have been thinking about Israel and with everything happening in the Middle East and the fact Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon I know there has been a lot of discussion about Israel … and their aggressiveness to proactively <sometimes> protect themselves.

Now.

I believe it is difficult for Americans to grasp the Israel situation because our country is isolated by miles of water on two sides with cheap labor on another side and the world’s nicest people <and some Moose> on the other.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by people, on all borders, who, at minimum, would prefer you not being there and, at maximum, would like to eliminate you from the earth.

Oh. And many of them with guns & rockets.

What I do know is that I am not Jewish so I could never understand the cultural core within Judaism and the spiritual tie to the region.

What I do know is the Jewish people have forged something strong enough to withstand consistent attempts at genocide for thousands of years. And I do know it is stronger than simple borders of a country. And yet … the country … and its holy sites are also stronger than simply symbols.

I also know as I thought about Israel somewhere in my pea-like brain I began thinking about the American Indians.

It probably began when I saw this quote in National Geographic:

“They tried extermination, they tried assimilation, they broke every treaty they had with us, they took away our horses, they outlawed our language, they made our ceremonies forbidden. And yet our ceremonies survived, our language survived.” – Alex White Plume (Oglala Lakota/Sioux)

And, no, I am not an American Indian (native American, Sioux, Iroquois, whatever) and therefore could never presume to understand the true essence of their cultural being.

Yet.

I thought of both as I read a National Geographic article and had a long complex discussion with a friend about Israel and Palestine and the Middle East in general.

Rather than blather on in my own words let me just place a number of quotations from a variety of people and let you think about it a little as you read:

“We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe … intend to murder jews wherever they are, they will be safe no place.” Hossein Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.

“The whites were always trying to make the Indians give up their life and live like the white men – go to farming, work hard and do as they did – and the Indians did not know how to do that, and did not want to anyway….If the Indians had tried to make the whites live like them, the whites would have resisted, and it was the same with many Indians.” – Wamditanka (Big Eagle) of the Santee Sioux

Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran’s chief of state, also known as the supreme leader - “The fake Zionist government is a cancerous tumor and the cause of different diseases and political, economic calamity in the region … it is a cancerous tumor that must be removed … Israel is ‘an infidel that should be warred against.’ ”

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson said:  ”And … if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi … in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them”.

We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon — no alternative.” -Golda Meir, Israeli politician, prime minister

“Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man’s advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. They have passed the mountains, and have settled upon Tsalagi (Cherokee) land. They wish to have that usurpation sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Cherokees. New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Cherokees and their fathers have so long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of the Ani Yvwiya, The Real People, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will be permitted to stay only a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the Cherokees, the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than to submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will hold our land.” -Dragging Canoe, Chickamauga Tsalagi

It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.” – Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League

“We preferred hunting to a life of idleness on the reservation where we were driven against our will. We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.” – Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister

(testifying to the commission in 1891 after Wounded Knee – 12/29/1890 event)

“There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce … of course it would have been alright if only the men were killed … we would almost feel grateful for it. But the fact of killing of women, and more especially the killing of the young boys and girls who are going to make up the future strength of the Indian people, is the saddest part of the whole affair and we feel it very sorely.” – Oglala leader American Horse

Lastly.

In 1980 the US Supreme Court awarded $106million to the Sioux as reparations for the Black Hills. The Sioux rejected it. They insist the Black Hills will never be for sale. The Sioux asked everyone to think of this insult. Mt. Rushmore is in the Black Hills. “The leaders who broke every promise and every treaty with my people have their faces carved in our most holy place.”

My point in including this last quote was to say that a holy place has no price, in terms of dollars, I would assume it can only be measured in blood if it can not be bought but only taken.

So.

I imagine I have offended a number of people with this post as well as probably shown some naiveté in some form or fashion. I apologize. But I don’t apologize for making anyone think. Maybe open their mind up to different perspectives.

Every day I look around the world, and before I open my pie hole, I try and put myself in their shoes. I know it isn’t really possible but there has to be some value in the attempt.

Anyway.

Israel.

But, in the end, after all the religious & holy & statesmanship words … I believe Crazy Horse summed up why I thought about Israel and the Indians when he said … “We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

Isn’t that all Israel is asking?

piers and ahmadinejad

September 26th, 2012

I am not a huge Piers Morgan fan <CNN> but when I saw he was going to interview Iran president Ahmadinejad I had to tune in. Heck. My site is called enlightened conflict. How could I ignore the opportunity to hear from a source of conflict and possibly gain some perspective?

Reminder 1: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a coalition of conservative political groups in the country.

Reminder 2: Some things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in the past:

-          “Iranians defend and present their Islamic and Iranian identity to other people worldwide.”

-          “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.”

-          “For this reason, the expansion of relations with all countries is on the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I mean balanced relationships, based on mutual respect and observation of each other’s rights.”

-          “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

-          “Israel has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.”

-          “We’ve never been anti-Semitic.”

Reminder 3: Let me note a president is a president. I know that may sound obvious, if not silly, but it is a reminder that no matter what perception you may have from sound bites and news flashes a leader of a country is charismatic, articulate, crafty-savvy and smart. He was all of these.

Reminder 4: He fully recognized CNN represented a global communications platform. Some of his answers were not answers and almost all of his words were measured but within the entire interview you certainly gained some perspective.

That said.

Some things he said:

Ahmadinejad: We condemn ‘extremism’

Ahmadinejad: Homosexuality ‘ugly’

Ahmadinejad: Iran has right to defend itself

Ahmadinejad: ‘Very close’ with Iran Jews

Here are some of my thoughts.

-          Americans should watch this interview. Your point of view may not change but taking a moment to look at how our actions can be seen thru another’s eyes is always worth a moment or two.

I will paraphrase this thought but as he noted the American 9/11 event as a tragedy where 3000 died he immediately qualified it by asking if it justified the reaction in which Muslims dying in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded 900,000 and almost 1.7 million injured <combatants & civilians>.

Not saying I agree it is just perspective/point of view. Just pointing out if we wonder on occasion why the Middle East may have a chip on their shoulder.

-          He reminded me of something Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his new book: “america needs to remember that its foreign policy is inextricably linked to domestic actions.”

Ahmadinejad said something like “the Arab spring was a reflection of the fact the middle east is in need of reform … in my eyes the entire world should be seeking to reform.” Ah. Reading between the lines …”doesn’t America need to reform?” … leading to “how dare America tell me what I can or cannot do when they can’t even keep their own house in order.” Beyond that … the implied was “would you quit talking to me about what I need to do to reform because I am not the only one who needs to.”

-          Governing within a religious construct suggests freedom with some pretty tight rules.

Some of the things he talked about (homosexuality in particular) sounded eerily like what a Christian fundamentalist would say. His answer with regard to his thoughts on homosexuality could have come straight out of the mouth of a Christian fundamentalist. I never begrudge anyone their religious beliefs and whether I agree or not with how they allow it to guide their lives I believe it is their choice. Oh.  That is called ‘freedom of choice.’ Extreme religious leadership imposes limitations on freedom of choice. My point? Individuals certainly can be guided in such a way n their own lives but an entire country creates issues <assuming 100% of the people will not agree all the time>.

-          With regard to that stupid amateur film disparaging the prophet he nailed the issue: “freedom of speech is not the same as abuse of speech.”

His words:

“Fundamentally, first of all, any action that is provocative, offends the religious thoughts and feelings of any people, we condemn, likewise, we condemn any type of extremism. Of course, what took place was ugly. Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. It shouldn’t take place, and I do hope the day will come in which politicians will not seek to offend those whom others hold holy.”

Personally I couldn’t agree with him any more on that one particular issue <not having much to do with freedom of speech>. I have written this before … freedom of speech is a responsibility. And it is also not freedom to be provocatively stupid, moronic & offensive to others’ beliefs.

Beyond that. He did not condone the violence. He walked a fine line on this topic – but I noted as I listened that I had to think hard about this. He governs within a religious construct – Iran is basically a religious state. We in America, and many nations for that matter, have elected to not govern that way. His response <in words and thoughts> is going to be different than most of ours. We see the film as a moronic example of freedom of speech. He sees the film as a religious affront. He doesn’t try to justify the reaction he simply gets aggravated we don’t understand the depths of the affront.

-          Whew. The Israel-Palestine discussion.

As a Muslim, and a Muslim leader, his perspective of self-determination skews his view to “don’t Palestinians have a right to determine their future.”

His words:

“If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? … Or would you help the people of the United States?”

Ahmadinejad asked in response to whether Israel should be “wiped off” the face of the map, as he once said.

“So when we say ‘to be wiped,’ we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world. For war-seeking to (be) wiped off and eradicated, the killing of women and children to be eradicated. And we propose the way. We propose the path. The path is to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-governance.”

He is relentless with imposing ‘self-determination.’

Oh. He surprised me when asked how he would feel if his daughter fell in love with a Jew when he said “I would have to see who that Jewish man or woman would be. I see love amongst people as completely acceptable. There are many Jews living in Iran with whom we are very close. There are … some Muslims that marry into Jewish families or marry Christians.”

“I — we have no such problems,” he added.

Well. I cannot even come close to fathoming how he thinks on this. It is so far out of my dna I can’t grasp it.

Now. I honestly don’t believe it is quite as simple as that in Iran but given how measured he was on other touchy topics it was enlightening to hear him go on record with that <and I share my perspective on this in my conclusion>.

-          When asked whether he believes in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ahmadinejad declined to comment.

“I cannot express an opinion. That is their prerogative but the people of Palestine must be allowed by everyone, and helped by everyone, to allow them, to give them the right to choose for themselves.”

-          The Holocaust.

I won’t even touch the holocaust discussion. He will not admit there was ever a Holocaust or directly answer a question about whether $6million jewish people lost their lives in WW2. Suffice it to say he didn’t answer the question (did he believe the holocaust occurred) and there was certainly a point where it looked like if he had a holy scimitar handy he would have sliced Piers head off right then and there.

Bottom line on the interview?

1. Perspective.

I believe any time we can see our own actions thru others eyes it cannot hurt. Did I agree with at all? Absolutely not. Did it make me think a little? Absolutely yes.

Foreign policy is complex. It is not just “make a strong stance” <or drawing some colored line in the sand like kids getting ready to challenge each other>. He also reminded me of another thing Brzezinski said on TV the other day … “if we <America> act unwisely the region could erupt.” Because whether I agree with Ahmadinejad or not he said something like “some of US actions have prompted extremism.” The point? Taking actions in anyone’s backyard generates some response particularly if it is perceived as a religious affront. Do I believe if the West did nothing that there would be no activity? Surely not. Do I believe countries around the world believe USA is ‘soft’ or isn’t as dangerous as it ‘used to be’? Absolutely not. America has the strongest, most far reaching, capable military in the world. The struggle is actually America itself … the bulk of America talks tough about foreign policy but doesn’t really have the stomach <nor should they> for doing some of the things that would need to be done to step in.

Beyond that … Ahmadinejad clearly points toward the best path is one in which the Middle East resolves their own issues if it can be done that way. We Americans tend to like to think that everything is about us … but here is a truth about the Middle East situation – it is really a war between moderate Muslim and radical Muslim. At its heart & soul it is a religious war. The best person to manage Iran is a relative sharing the religion … not a distant neighbor who does not.

2. Frankly, Ahmadinejad concerned me for a number of reasons.

(a) He is smart, crafty smart.

He portrays himself as an enlightened, reasonable person who thinks everyone should just be left alone to do whatever they want in their own country. He complains about a world where Israel can threaten Iran over suspected nuclear ambitions and in the next breath refuses to recognize Israel as a state and has said that he wants the current Israeli political regime to cease to exist. Iran also funds and supports militants & terrorists on Israel’s border who have thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli population centers. The concept that Iran just wants to live in peace and security with its neighbors is a fiction … well … as long as Israel is one of its neighbors that is.

(b) He is intolerant within a religious construct.

This has nothing to do with Sharia law but everything to do with whether you believe the Koran <or Bible for that matter> is a metaphorical guide for actions or an actual guide for actions. Just as he wields ‘self-determination’ like a bludgeon <see c.> he wields the Koran as his unswerving constitutional guide … not just for moral direction but also for leadership action.

Think of it as almost exactly opposite of say Turkey.

This creates internal country issues but let’s imagine any country can elect to govern as they wish. However, it also creates massive external repercussions globally in dealing with other governmental constructs. And, more importantly, within the Middle East in which while he may chafe with his more moderate brethren he happens to have a neighbor, on the same street mind you, that has a country founded upon a completely different religious construct. With such a rigid, values based <which makes it a ‘divine’ construct> construct I cannot envision the tolerance and flexibility needed for realistic compromise that takes place in any diplomacy.

(c) He invokes “self-determination” nonstop (which invariably stokes resentment anytime anyone from the west decides to be involved in the region’s business).

This circles back to the crafty smart comment. Self-determination is an American foreign policy lynchpin established by Woodrow Wilson post WW1. It is stated beliefs that the established population has a right to self determine their future as a state/country.

Well, in a wildly imagination-driven world even I addressed this <in my ‘remapping the middle east’ post: http://brucemctague.com/a-new-map-of-the-middle-east) but there is always a relationship to the ‘bigger picture’ regardless of whether it simply be regional <Middle East> or globally <the globe>. Most self-determination type discussions involve domestic <what is right for me at home> and internationally <what impact will this have economically and exchange of trade/ideas/etc.>. he is only showing us one side of the coin.

He is also crafty with regard to self-determination and Israel.

This next thought may get me in trouble but here goes … Ahmadinejad may not be anti-Jewish but rather simply anti-Israel <he continues to refuse to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state>. But, heck, he may not even give a flip about Israel … if it was say maybe located near Paraguay or Luxembourg.

The crux of this thought/concern? I do believe he would guide his country to take any steps possible to eliminate Israel from the Middle East but I believe his whole self-determination argument suggests that he believes the REGION would self-determine that Israel just didn’t belong there. It is a frightening argument. And one that takes you down an inevitable path where Israel is not going to simply move near Paraguay/Luxembourg therefore the leader of Iran is suggesting if they don’t move we will move them. Ultimately that is why this man, and this situation, is dangerous.

I am glad I watched.

It reminded me of something I wrote last week … it is becoming more and more difficult to discern the good guys from the bad guys. When reasonable is so intertwined with unreasonable it becomes easy to think ‘that makes sense’ and … well … just move on. What I have found is that the unreasonable are excellent at wielding the ‘reasonable’ thoughts like a surgeon … cutting into doubt just enough that you hesitate from saying what you know in your heart of hearts is the right thing.

Watch it.

It never hurts to listen.

news flash: China is not the world’s largest economy

August 31st, 2012

Yup.

Sorry about that folks. China is the number two <and trying harder I believe> economy.

They overtook Japan as world’s second-biggest economy (Japan’s economy was worth $5.474 trillion -£3.414 trillion- at the end of 2010. China’s economy was closer to $5.8 trillion in the same period).

Japan has been hit by a drop in exports and consumer demand, while China has enjoyed a manufacturing boom.

World’s 10 biggest economies (according to IMF 2010):

1. US

2. China

3. Japan

4. Germany

5. France

6.  UK

7. Italy

8.  Brazil

9. Canada

10. Russia

I begin with this because it seems like I have recently had a bunch of conversations about (1) how bad the American economy is <and the future of it> and (2) how China is kicking everyone’s ass <economically … although I imagine militarily they would if they elected to>.

Some perspective folks.

Please. Some perspective.

Even using current trends, which assume America will not resolve some of its economic issues and China maintains their current growth <both flawed assumptions>, America will remain the world’s largest economy for the foreseeable future (at its current rate of growth, analysts see China replacing the US as the world’s top economy in about a decade … and the US economy is currently almost three times the size of the Chinese economy in dollar terms).

America generates lots of jobs, lots of stuff, lots of money and lots of doom & gloom attitudinally. I am not suggesting some major things don’t need to be fixed but people need to discern attitudes <fear that things are bad in the economy> versus reality <how bad is their own life>.

Ok.

All that said, yes, the mood about economics is exceedingly gloomy around the world.

In a recent PewGlobalAttitudes survey of 21 countries a median of just 27% think their national economy is doing well.

Only in China, Germany, Brazil and Turkey do most people report that current national economic conditions are good.

Less than a third of Americans (31%) say the U.S. economy is doing well.

That figure is up 13% points from 2011 <but it is down 19 points from 2007 which was the year before the financial crunch began>.

A median of just 16% of Europeans surveyed think their economy is performing up to par. That includes just 2% of the Greeks and 6% of the Spanish and Italians.

Among Europeans, only the Germans (73%) give their economy a positive.

Oddly just 7% of Japanese believe their economy is doing well <despite the fact the country has the third largest economy in the world>.

Anyway.

Here is an interesting point to make.

In the study people are generally far more positive about their personal economic condition than they are about their nation’s economic situation. A median of 52% in the 21 nations surveyed feel satisfied with their own circumstances.

And Americans are twice as likely to say their family finances are in good shape as they are to say that the national economic situation is good.

There are larger differences in Britain and Japan, where those who rate their personal economic situation as good exceed the number who have positive views of the national economy by more than four-to-one.

Only the Chinese are significantly more likely to say the national economy is doing better than their families’ finances.

Next.

Capitalism <or the concept of it and how people feel about it>.

The global economic crisis has dented capitalism’s image.

In 11 of the 21 nations surveyed, half or fewer now agree with the statement that people are better off in a free market economy even though some people are rich and some are poor. And such backing is down in 9 of 16 nations with comparable data since 2007, before the Great Recession began.

Anyway.

Regardless.

Being #1 or being #3 or any number in say the top 5 is kind of irrelevant in a reality-based discussion. All in the top 5 generate gobs of revenue & jobs & opportunities. So even if America “slips” from the numero uno slot 10 years from now is the issue pride and attitude or real economic issues? <I will get back to you 10 years from now on that question>.

For now? America is number one. And approximately 3x, yes … 3 frickin’ times the size of number 2 <by the way … number 2 has 3x more people … uhm … gee … what would be the personal net worth evaluation on that?>.

I share this information with a couple of thoughts in mind:

-          We americans act like … well … a leader who is whining so much we are forgetting we are a leader. Our economy makes shit happen. Globally.

The point? Leaders lead. Cause if they don’t they end up following at some point.

-          Facts. Whew. The media sure does stir us up. And, yes, it all does sound like monopoly money at times in mind boggling ways. A trillion dollars, to me, is the kind of number that sends a shiver up my spine when I think of my own bank account. And maybe that is the issue … a country’s bank account doesn’t look anything like mine. Heck. Its balance sheet looks nothing like mine. I may have this wrong <because with all the frickin zeroes I think I misplaced some commas> but according to the Economist Pocket World of Figures America has a $14+trillion annual economy. That’s GDP. That’s a lot of money.

When my friends share a beer and talk about how if they can balance their business balance sheet or their personal balance sheet why can’t the country … well … in some ways I think it is almost apples and oranges <although both are fruit>. I cannot fathom the sheer amount of ledger entries you would have to make daily, let alone hourly, if you tracked a country as a true business.

Anyway. We act like our economy is the size, and acts like, Greece. Well. We may not have the nifty ruins or the ouzo but we have more money. Lots more. In fact 3 times more than … well … number 2 <and that ain’t Greece>.

Ok.

Done with this topic. America has a large economy. Even on its worst day it is still very very large. And I wish not only more people recognized this but also recognized the only one who can truly kick america’s economic ass is probably … well .. itself.

comment of the day: elections and governing

May 10th, 2012

I saw this comment in The Guardian:

The French elections lasted for what? A month and a half, now they have a new President. Our elections begin 2 years in advance and don’t end until super tuesday which sounds like a sporting event. Our leaders cannot function because they are always fighting for their jobs from every special interest group in the world. – The Guardian: commenter commenting on The US election

I agree.

manifesto book end thinking (a series of two)

April 4th, 2012

Ok.

This is going to be a 2 part series discussing 2 incredibly well written and often misunderstood documents. These two documents are a reflection of two of the most important and influential political theories ever created. Both documents continue to influence and provoke discussion on ideology, capitalism and government. And mostly I wanted to write about the documents because if you have ever doubted the power of the written word … and how words can impact how people think & act … read these documents and your doubt will cease to exist.

I, being me, will highlight 2 seemingly opposite manifestos in the series (hence the reason I call this idea ‘bookends’).

The 2 documents? The American Constitution and the Communist Manifesto.

Yup. They are bookends to me.

And two bookends everyone should have on their shelf. I don’t care where you live or what ideology floats your boat or what, culturally, your manifesto may be … well … manifested in. If you believe in enlightened conflict and having an enlightened point of view both documents should be at your fingertips.

And bookends because the creators thought about similar things and evolved into extremely well articulated documents. In 1843 (the communist manifesto was actually completed in 1848) Marx was a young student and more committed to a more democratic form of republicanism. Eventually evolving into what he formed as a communist for of ideology. In the 1780′s America’s founding fathers sought an environment of a combination of pluralism, socialism and democracy ultimately ending up with what America is today – a republic. They didnt trust an unfettered democracy and therefore set up a relatively unique (components had been utilized in Rome, Scotland and Latvia in years past) system of democratic checks & balances within a Republic concept.

Regardless of what your current ideology both documents are beautifully crafted, most portions remain timeless in their thinking may be two of the shortest most impactful documents of all time. Ok. The two documents I will discuss.

This first will be the constitution.

As I have stated before it is one of the most well written forward thinking “white papers” of all time. It is the standard for democratic (or people government driven) rules of the road of all time.

The second will be the Communist Manifesto.

Now.  This document is maybe one of the most concise, and well written, ‘power of the everyday people’ social documents of all time. It resonates today and parts of it are … well … relevant to many topics being discussing everywhere today.

Now.

I am not going to tear apart each document but rather try and take the parts that are being discussed today and … well … be enlightening.

Plus.

I get to discuss two documents I believe everyone should read.

And I get to discuss two documents I never tire of picking up and reviewing.

Some caveats.

I am fairly sure I got all the technical aspects correct. I am absolutely sure I got my opinions correct. And more than sure there are some grammatical and typing errors.

Enjoy.

bookend 1: american constitution

April 4th, 2012

“We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” – Daniel Webster

Ok.

I begin the two part series with the American Constitution. With all the dizzying rhetoric wrapped around the constitution these days let’s begin with a fact.

No interpretation.

The American constitution is probably the best written, best though out, best forward thinking practical “ideological white paper” of all time.

Take a look. Read it. Maybe even reread it. The stuff <thoughts, ideas, words> that they had the foresight to build into the document is boggling to the mind if you think about it.

(this link is to the transcript but it also has images of the original document: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )

Anyway.

I began writing about the constitution because it is being so misused and abused by politicians it is making Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock and any forefather you want to name , who actually participated in the tea party, turn over in their grave.

And how it is being discussed (tearing it apart word by word) is frightening … because … well … while the writers were extremely thoughtful with regard to individual words <incredibly so> the document was written with the intent to be taken in its entirety.

As the sum of its parts.

Plus.

I let the people on the Supreme Court figure out any nuances … they get paid the big bucks and, frankly, they have bigger brains. They were given a job and similar to the guy who was given the job to supervise the jack hammer construction workers, who I assume knows jack hammers better than I ever could, they have better skills at their job than I would.

Ok.

With that rant being aired out let me take a minute and share some information about the Constitution.

We the People.

What an opening.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, inure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And with that opening I interpret some personal responsibility. “Personal” being you & I. And a responsibility to know the Constitution.

Research continues to show that the vast majority of Americans cherish the U.S. Constitution … but do not know much about it. if this isn’t an example of “choiceful ignorance” I don’t know what it. Why do I say that?
The same research indicates that most of us believe that the health of our Constitutional democracy depends on active and informed citizenry.
some facts from a survey done by the National Constitution center:

-          91% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution is important to them

-          84% believe that to work as intended, our system of government depends on active and informed citizens

But.

-          More than half of Americans don’t know the number of Senators <100 senators … 2 from each of the 50 states regardless of population … and as a bonus … The House of Representatives has 435 members … I think>

-          About 1 out of 3 don’t know the number of branches of the Federal Government <ok. I admit. I am embarrassed to say that I didn’t know this off the top of my head … there are three branches of government: The Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch is Congress, Senate & House of Representatives, making laws. The Executive branch executes the laws made by the Legislative. Think the president as the Executive Branch. The Judicial branch big kahuna is the Supreme Court which is made up of nine justices. Each branch functions as a checks & balance for the system. Basically, the Legislative branch creates laws, the Judicial Branch interprets laws, and the Executive branch executes laws>

-          1 out of 6 believe that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation <not even close … freedom of religion, including islam, was encouraged and a number of documents from the founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Adams – support this belief>

-          20% believe that only lawyers can understand the Constitution <interpret portions maybe … but it is one of the most straightforward documents you will ever read>

-          Almost one-quarter cannot name a single right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment <freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly & petition of grievances … I usually miss press, assembly and grievances>

-          84% believe that the U.S. Constitution is the document that states that “all men are created equal” <that is the Declaration of Independence>.

Next.

When asked to describe in their own words what the U.S. Constitution means to them, Americans refer to the Constitution as the bedrock upon which our society and laws are based.

Q.: What Does The U.S. Constitution Mean To You?

  • Freedom (34%)
  • Basis of our rights (20%)
  • Our system of laws (11%)
  • Established this country (7%)
  • Established our government
  • Determines our quality of life (3%)
  • Everything (3%)

Yet, more than three quarters (83%) admit that they know only “some” or “very little” about the specifics of the document.

Ok.

So more people need to pay attention to the Constitution.

Reading & interpreting it.

People can generally agree on what the words of the Constitution says.  Typically we struggle with interpretation.

Generally speaking, there are two main ways in which court justices, judges, and legal analysts interpret laws and constitutions:

-          As living documents that evolve as the culture changes

-          As fixed documents whose meaning never changes from the time that they were written until now.

Simplistically most who lean toward a more liberal perspective tend to think of it as a living document and a more conservative perspective thinks of it as a fixed document <note: that is a generalization>.

But I say that to help highlight why so much heated discussion takes place over a variety of issues important to America … and how the constitution is being used, and abused, to further people’s initiatives.

Anyway. If you are interested … there is an excellent paper written by Yale Law Review called “How To Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To) by Michael Stokes Paulsen which provides an excellent perspective with sources, of course, to aim you toward more reading if you would like. (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf)

It is interesting to note that he suggests the best book of all time explaining the constitution is actually The Federalist written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. I say interesting because it was written so long ago and yet a contemporary Yale Law Journal contributor believes it to be so.

Ok, moving on.

States, federal & balance

It seems one of the wackiest discussions happening today centers on federal government (or how big and what role it should play).

And the popular rhetoric surrounds states and state’s rights.

Ok. Let’s be clear. I am not a big government guy.

Nor am I a state’s guy.

I am a balance guy. And a guy who believes the balance today will be different from the balance tomorrow.

And actually our forefathers were also <I am not suggesting I am as smart as any of our forefathers>.

Let me discuss “states’ rights” first (then how politicians abuse this issue … how we permit them to abuse it … and then the whole ‘rights of individuals themselves’).

Ok. What about states’ rights.  It is the hot topic du jour.

Many people suggest that The Tenth Amendment limits Congress to those areas in which the Constitution explicitly empowers it to act. And all other responsibility resides with the states.

But … well … no. <sorry … couldn’t figure out how else to say it>

The Constitution was actually written to provide balance (10th amendment included).

And the flexibility to provide different balance depending on different situations.

And it also has a variety of checks & balances with it (think of the Supreme Court decision making as the ultimate decision maker on balance).

All that said let’s take a minute to look at how balance between the Federal government and states is organized in the Constitution. The issue of states’ rights was very important to a key author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson. He was the main arguer for the amendments we know as ‘The Bill of Rights’ where the ‘Tenth Amendment’ strikes a crucial balance between State and Federal power.

-              Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People – Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In addition, the powers of the Federal government were limited by design see ‘Section 8 Powers of Congress.’ The Federal government was intended to be the glue to hold the states into a nation.

The Federal government responsibilities?

According to the Constitution the Federal government should only handle things that must go into and between the state and national borders. Settle disputes between states, provide a unified defense, foreign and trade policy. War, immigration, postal system, currency and banking.

Oh. And the “biggie” … “promote the general Welfare.”

All other powers are reserved to the States or to the people.

Ok.

And before we start saying things like “the constitution suggests the government shouldn’t be in the business business (like car manufacturers).

Wrong.

In fact early forefather type governments recognized the government HAD to helps support some businesses until they got on their feet. Thankfully it was that attitude, and actions, that made America the global economic power that it is today.

Anyway.

States and people.

We the people.

Clearly stated.  Clearly defined.

States are always stated as “United States” in some document we like to call the Constitution. Oh. And the constitution replaced the articles of confederation (which was basically a states driven government constitution) to strengthen a federal government to balance the states’ rights.

So.

Here’s the deal (number 1): States.

States. States have rights as long as the individual parts strengthen the whole (the United States).

Federal. The federal government has rights as long as it strengthens the whole (the United States).

And they have the ability to step in when they see individual parts harming, or weakening, the whole. Individual parts may not like that and they may shout and stamp their feet and have a temper tantrum but someone (the federal government) has to look at the bigger picture.

Sorry. That’s the <American> gig.

If you don’t like that … well …

Here’s the deal (part 2): politicians (elected officials)

Politicians need to step up to the plate. Because here is where our selected politicians are failing us.  They are elected to balance our individual needs (their direct constituents) and the wholes needs (the USA).  That means sometimes they need to tell the truth to their local constituents (the ones who voted them in).

Yeah.  Something like “wow. It would be good for us but in the scheme of things what would be good for us may not represent the best for the whole (the USA). ”

Whew.  That doesn’t get you reelected (because it is not selfish enough).

But it is telling the truth.

Ok. Where am I going with this?

Here’s the deal (part 3): Us

We the people.  Us. You and I. Because in the end it comes down to us.  Seeking the truth and accepting the truth.  We the people are not “I the people.”

“The people make the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”
John Marshall, Chief Justice of The Supreme Court

Do we care what happens to us as individuals? Surely. As we live eat and breathe.

Do we need to weigh government <national> decisions as we versus I? Surely <as much as it may pain us to do so sometimes>.

We need to remember that ‘We the people’ is the United States. And despite any despicable behavior of elected constituents we need to take responsibility for their behavior.

And seek to encourage the behavior that reflect honesty so we can truly judge what is best not just for I but for we (no matter how painful that may be).

And today more than ever this is truth because we are making important budget decisions that are inevitably going to hurt somewhere at a local level (it would be naïve to suggest budget cuts are cutting ‘big government’ and that isn’t really ‘local jobs/business’).

But truth be told … the decisions will hurt at a minority of the local level.

And these budget decisions help the whole.

Let me go back to the ‘does this hurt a minority’?  Yup.

It is really easy to look at things that hurt your own wallet.  And your own house.  And your own family.  And are you wrong? Well. No.  And yes.

No in that your first consideration should be your own family and your own immediate needs.

Yes in that there is a bigger picture.

And what may hurt you today (and your family) may actually be okay in the end (several years from now).

And I imagine the reason I wrote about the constitution is that I believe not only has the everyday person (you & i) lost sight of what it meant when it was written but I also believe the politicians have lost sight of why we elect them.

We elect them to not only represent our personal needs but also to explain to us the greater needs.  And this is maybe where we fail them.

Because all we seem to focus on is “me” (or I depending on your grammatical preference).

Because, frankly, what is an elected official to do? Tell us the truth or rather fight to do something to benefit us (even if it is not in the nest interest of “us” – we the people.).

And that is where they sometimes elect to bastardize the constitution.

They play us (and shame on us for permitting that to happen).

They play the ‘rights of the state’ card versus the federal government point of view card.

Look.

There is no “pick one side or the other.”  It’s balance.

And the politicians who stand up and thump their chests and create some diatribe on one or the other is screwing with you.

It’s balance.

Sometimes the state carries the day and benefits what you need (and is right for the bigger picture).  Sometime the federal government sees the bigger picture and it hurts people locally but is really good for the bigger picture.

So we , the people, need to get our heads out of our asses and see the bigger picture and quit shoving something up our local representations ass trying to get something done (so he/she gets re-elected)  and let them do what they were elected to do.

And that is what our forefathers desired … fair state representation, all the time, keeping the USA in mind (the bigger picture) … all the time.

Ok.

Another thing (as we read the constitution).

Democracy, Republic, Socalism & Pluralism

We seem to forget some things.

We are a republic … not a democracy.

In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.

Yup. Our form of government is called a Republic, not a Democracy where a majority rules. Here is a factoid for you.

The Founding fathers kind of disliked the idea of a pure democracy.

Thus they set up a system of limited government that was a federation of states.

In addition.

We need to remember that the Constitution was not written to protect the principles of the majority. James Madison, key writer of the Constitution, understood that in a democratic republic the rights of the majority need no such protection. In fact Madison and his fellow founding fathers believed that the greatest threat to American liberty would be the tyranny of a majority – a tyranny in which “the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker.”

Think about this.

Because it is tricky.

Make sure the majority has the ability to live life to its fullest and yet insure the majority doesn’t ‘oppress the weak’ … oh … and not be a socialist or communist system.

It becomes easy to see how those who opine actually have something to opine about.

All that said.

The constitution is a brilliant document.

And it is brilliantly crafted to enable balance.

And it implies a governing with a lack of selfishness in mind.

Governing with a greater good in mind.

Because the constitution, whether states’ rights believers or federal government believers, clearly has America’s greater good in mind.

Read it.

Interpret it. Discuss it. And hold elected officials accountable to truth.

Ok.

That said.

On to the next post and the next document (and the last in this series).

The next document doesn’t have a country in mind as the ‘greater good.’ It goes completely to the other end of the spectrum and focuses almost solely on a completely different interpretation of ‘we the people.’ It focuses solely on the greater good of people almost in a ‘global community’ frame of reference as nation boundaries

The Communist Manifesto.

Yup.

Speaking of people driven rules of the road you would have to be silly to ignore the communist manifesto.  Ignore all the trappings of “communist” and focus on the words.

It represents words of the people.

And it resonates as well today as did it then.

bookend 2: manifesto of the communist party

April 4th, 2012

This is the last of my “manifesto” series.

But it was maybe the first that I thought about. Because as I watch the news and see the pictures in Egypt and Sudan and the middle east <and everything else associated with a populace driven revolution> I thought about the manifesto of the communist party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto).

Now. I am not a communist. But all the things happening in the streets of … well … pretty much every city these days started thinking about the power of the common everyday people.

Or ‘every day people unite’ (which is actually the close to the manifesto).

So I plucked my copy of the manifesto off my shelf and reread it.

If you have never read it this comment may seem daunting.  But The Communist Manifesto is only 53 pages long.

Less if you skip the Communist Literature section (which was outdated almost at first publishing).

It is an astonishing little read.

And it is also astonishing to think it was written by a 30 and 28 year old (Marx and Engel respectively).  It is an amazingly concentrated brief document written with an intellectual stylishly personal perspective.

From its opening “a spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism” to the closing of “the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” the pamphlet is full of simplicity which still rings true today.

There are a couple of “truths” to think about before I get to the Manifesto.

-          Truth 1. Communism is better as a theoretical model then as a day to day reality.

-          Truth 2. Today’s world actually has nothing to do with the working class/common people … it is actually an uprising of the middle class who is losing what they had.

-          Truth 3. Some of the building block thoughts and components of the Communist Manifesto are insightful and truthful and when looked at with vision explain much of what we see around us in today’s world.

Interestingly … in a truly academic point of view … if you look at today’s world … socialism is more a middle class movement and communism a working class movement.

And socialism <or at least aspects of it to those who truly understand what it is> has always been quasi-respectable and communism not.

Marx suggested that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Communism therefore is the same as that of all proletariat (working class) parties – formation of the workers into a class and ultimately the overthrow of the bourgeois (wealthy elite) supremacy.  Therefore … communism is not based on ideas or principles but rather the rights of a “working class” of people.

Gosh.

When I type something like that … and think about today … well … it sure does make you think.

Anyway.

The Manifesto.

-          Note: where appropriate I substituted worker/worker class for proletariat and wealthy elite for bourgeoisie.

Capitalism leads to exploitation. The wealthy elite has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers. It has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. – Manifesto

-          Capitalism does lead to exploitation. However … capitalism also leads to innovation, improvement, increased standard of living as well as a variety of other positives. If I could have sat good ole Karl down I believe I would have suggested an additional word – “unfettered.” Unfettered (or un-managed) capitalism leads to exploitation. But. I am not as smart as Karl so I think I will leave it as is and suggest this is one of the few flaws in the Communist Manifesto. A big flaw but one of the few.

“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the working class; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests” – Manifesto

-          “They defend their future interests.” Oh my. I believe something we tend to forget is that democracy and communism are both class based ideologies. And both are based on protecting the majority classes. I am not suggesting they are the same just have some basic ideological similarities. If you accept that, you can read the Communist Manifesto not as a communist but rather as someone interested in everyone getting a fair shake.

“soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of wealthy elite society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. – Manifesto

-          This is Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. Schumpeter was not a Marxist, communist nor a Capitalist. He was simply an economist who believed that <simplistically> the new will destroy the old as it evolved into a better place. That destructive crises naturally occurred as a way to replace that which is with what will be.

“In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” – Manifesto

-          Basically Marx outlines a global economy, nation’s interdependent upon each other, as well as intellectual collaboration, before there was ever the world wide web. Go figure.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. – Manifesto

-          Marx did a nice job of providing historical reference for classes and, ultimately, class conflict. Civilization is almost always defined by the struggle between have and have-nots. And the belief by the have nots, realistic or not, that someday they can become a ‘have.’ That being said one of the major flaws in the Communist theory is that it overlooks this basic human attitude (leading to behavior). Have-nots or Have-somes are just fine with the Haves as long as they believe (a) opportunity exists, if they work hard enough, to enter into the Have group and (b) the Haves don’t have disproportionate wealth versus the Have-nots. People inherently like working toward something … even if it is just a dream. Marx designed a utopian ideology where all are equal. In theory it is an interesting concept. In practicality the majority of people don’t desire that.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. – Manifesto

-          This is interesting to me because ultimately the concept of Communism is dependent upon a society bereft of a real & viable middle class.  Just when communism could have taken hold worldwide capitalism permitted the working class to evolve into a viable thriving middle class. Today? The middle class feels threatened … as it is getting dragged down closer & closer to “proletariat” level. Therefore it is revolting (Occupy movement, Red Square protesters, Middle East upheaval, etc.)

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.” – Manifesto

-          While components of this are dead on … where Marx/Engel got it wrong was that the development of industry actually increased the strength of the middle class. That doesn’t make this thinking any less thoughtful, or brilliant.  That last sentence … makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes … summarizes exactly what is happening today.

In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced …” – Manifesto

-          Marx recognized the emerging middle class it is just that he never envisioned it gaining such a stronghold in developed societies. But, once again, I would like to point out that those who “had” <once part of the ‘haves’> start the slippery slope of having to ‘not have’ <note: just by ‘not having’ does not mean you become a “have not”> they begin to feel supplementary rather than essential. I imagine my real point here is that the economic situation is almost as much about attitudes as it is about real economic issues.

“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”- Manifesto

-          Well. if there was ever a better written indictment against elitist driven governments I am not sure I have ever read one. The problem with any government in any country is the ability to do what is best for each constituent as well as the whole of the constituents. Unless there is a dictatorship the happiness <derived from some aspect of ‘what is best for me’> of the population dictates the overall success of not only the government but of the nation as a whole. Governments have to be careful they do not become a class in itself.

Ok.

I included this next portion not to really make any point other than many of us have a sense of the underpinnings of communism but they are typically tainted by our view of Communist Soviet Union. Marx/Engel had a vision. A complete vision. And while we may shiver at some aspects (those of us in a social democracy like America) there are other aspects which reflect the fact that Communism was viable on a number of levels:

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

-          Once again I say that aspects are too theoretical … and frightening to suggest that such power resides solely within “centralization” … and it is probably within that main flaw that communism was so wrongly implemented … but .. education, public transportation, equal opportunity employment, etc. All are aspects of which create a worthy society and economy. And, once again, I state that this little pamphlet, only 50+ pages, outline an entire ideology and economic and societal state. Pretty amazing stuff.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.

-          Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … the popular American 1%/99% nomenclature of today … only stated at “the 10% at the expense of the 90%.”

So.

I just selected some passages from this incredibly well written pamphlet. Do I agree with everything in it? Absolutely not. But as far as ideological writing it is on par with the Constitution. Well articulated thoughts conducted in absolute brevity.

And.

One last thought.

“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” – Marx

In fairness to Marx, and in deference to the fact I call my site enlightened conflict always seeking to lessen hostility <or conflict> … Marx’s ultimate objective was ‘hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

So ends my reflection on two of the best written ideological documents of all time. Heck. Two of the best written documents, of any type, of all time.

In this post the Communist Manifesto and the one before the American Constitution.

Depending on where you live you will … well … live by some of these words.

But. Wherever you live you should read these two documents and think.

Enlightened Conflict