Is the left-right paradigm useful or a detriment to our society?

How could the left-right paradigm, the framework within which we describe our ideas concerning political values and ideology, by a detriment to society? Consider the polarization that's taken place in the United States. I'm sure that healthy, positive, even constructive debate still takes place south of our border. However, it does seem that with two parties ostensibly at opposite sides of the left-right spectrum both people and parties tend to simply yell at one another and resolve themselves to the notion that, since they'll never agree on anything, all of their efforts should go towards convincing others that their notion of 'the good' is the right one, rather than engage in constructive dialogue. This polarization in the US is often times reinforced and seemingly encouraged in the media, forcing conflict on issues for which some kind of compromise should be possible.

On the other hand, perhaps the spectrum is useful for helping to frame our dialogue. One advantage I can see is that left-right politics is not necessarily specific to any specific place; theoretically these are ideas about politics and society that are applicable anywhere, and this helps to rally people who share ideologies together across space. It also provides a starting point for dialogue concerning politics to take place, and is, for the most part, easily understandable for a wide portion of the population/citizenry.

What do you think?

Minority Government...?! Good idea or bad...

With an historical and surprising federal election just recently behind us, I've been meaning to put up a post contrasting both minority and majority governments. During the lead up to the election there was much ado about the pros and cons of having a Conservative majority; there were campaigns both to try and keep this from happening on the one hand and, on the other hand, those who advocated the importance of realizing a majority government this time around.

Those who argued for a majority argued that this would finally enable the nation to 'move forward' with a stable government with a mandate to get things done. I just want to paint a slightly different perspective through reference to an institution and idea that often times seems to get lost around election time. This 'idea' is democracy - the notion that decisions regarding our society and our future should be made with input and participation from the citizenry. If all we want to do is get things done and move forward, and, above all, achieve 'stability', well, there are way more efficient political paradigms out there to achieve this. Most notable of these is a dictatorship. There's nothing more efficient than one person making the call.

During the lead up to the election I heard reference made to the money that gets wasted in a minority government. Yes it's true - democracies are expensive. But some time ago some societies agreed it was worth the cost, and ostensibly we in the West still share this belief. Granted - having a minority government that has to spend time consulting, collaborating, and debating issues in the House with other parties before making a decision going forward is more expensive than the alternative. But isn't this what, at a fundamental level, we all believe in? Electing representatives to get together in a parliament, voice the concerns of constituents, and ensure that no one interest or person can make decisions without some sort of accountability to, or consultation with, the citizenry? I'll admit this is a bit of an idealistic perspective, but I would argue that, in the context of our current electoral system, minority governments at least get us some level of discussion, collaboration, and consensus building at parliament.

Water on the Table: A film about our most wasted resource | rabble.ca

Water on the Table: A film about our most wasted resource | rabble.ca

The commodification of water, whereby water would become a typical commodity to be bought and sold, elicits a sense of deja vu for political economists with a sense of history (although, is there ever really another kind...?). This is a possibility both frightening and menacing, the likes of which we've seen before...

Raj Patel makes the salient point in his book 'The Value of Nothing" that there are no innate or inherent qualities to particular goods that makes them commodities. Societies make very explicit choices regarding particular goods to be bought and sold. As a telling example, he uses land. Prior to the enclosures that took place in Britain and elsewhere, the land on which the majority of people (the peasantry) lived on was not necessarily privately held. However, British society made a very explicit choice to enclose former commonly farmed land, by making arable lands entitled to a single owner. This made land a commodity to be bought and sold, and as such was no longer available for the wider benefit of a plurality of people. It made some people very rich, but reduced others even further into poverty.

In the same way, this documentary makes the point that a similar process is taking place with water around the world. We're not there yet, but in some parts of the world we're well on the way...

Industry and the State

My wife asked me today whether I believed in state run enterprise/industry. My response was in the negative. However, in the context of today's supranational corporations running roughshod over communities and natural resources, this may not seem the most sensible response at first sight.

Thing is, we've never witnessed the sort of unprecedented and phenomenal innovation that's taken place in the last couple of centuries. This is due in no small part to having a foundation which allows for free enterprise. This is capitalism's forte - the freeing up of capital and human resources, within a sufficient context of liberty, to unleash the creative ingenuity at the heart of human potential. "Free" markets (in quotations because the concept has never really been applied according to definition) has resulted in countless innovations.

On the other hand, do I think industries and companies in the West have a little too much leeway in carving out resources and market share? Yes. Do I think government could do a better job? Not really. However, although the free market construct and the institutions derived in its name have led to some spectacular progress and growth, the same cannot be said with respect to the protection of people, communities, and resources. This is completely understandable. The corporation, the principle actor here, is not built this way. The corporate entity is single minded in purpose - keep input costs low and increase growth as much as possible through innovation and other means. Unfortunately, this leaves no opportunity for the consideration of the human interest, except in so far as it improves innovation and growth. That's no fault of the corporation, that's just the way it is.

What's the human interest? Keeping our rivers clean, keeping neighborhoods safe and livable, keeping some green space, and whatever else different people in different areas of the world think is important to them. This is government's forte. The ability to exert sovereign control over an area and to exert the will of people (whether these 'people' are tyrants, oligarchs, democrats, republicans, or bona-fide democratically elected representatives is another matter). In other words, to balance and protect the perceived needs and desires of people and societies with the free enterprises that provide for innovation and economic growth. Granted, there's a lot of room for improvement in the way in which people are chosen/determined to exert the sovereign control of a society over itself. But I'll leave that for another time.

As an example, consider police and fire forces around the world. It is pretty much agreed, these services are best not left to free enterprise. These services are seen as a necessary part of livable societies, and so best left in the hands of government. The same could be argued for the regulation of natural resources, the inputs utilized by many free enterprises, or the regulation of infrastructure in order to ensure it meets the needs of the communities for which it is being built.

So I'm all for liberty and free enterprise. However, I see this liberty as more than the freedom to innovate and grow exponentially. I see it as the freedom not only to grow and innovate, but to sustain ourselves for the future, protect our communities, and ensure a safe place for one another.

The sky, trees, and grass are natural...the state is not

In a book I was reading this morning the author referred to the notion that the world around us is constantly falling apart, and how this has occurred throughout history. Now, he wasn't referring to any physical entropy (not to say physical changes in the world don't occur, that's just not what he was talking about...). He referred to the breaking apart and constant reformulation of nations, countries, states, and societies throughout history.

This reminded me of a more specific point of history which I think it is in our benefit to keep in mind; that there's nothing natural or innate about the 'state' or the 'nation'. These socio-political constructs have proved the most resilient in recent times, mainly due to the adoption of this model by the industrialized and most wealthy of nations. However, social organization according to specific territorial outlines is only one way of organizing ourselves politically. There have been others throughout time, and it is important to remember this.

In fact, this model has proved so popular and immutable, notably in the West, that we can't imagine our lives without our citizenship. That is, our membership and inclusion with a particular territorial entity. And around the world, societies where this particular nation-state model do not fit with the cultural and social traditions have constant challenges - both in protecting their rights (indigenous peoples most commonly have this difficulty) and in moving forward and taking part in the industrialized world, and in building stable societies. Not only that, but those without citizenship find themselves undefined, without a home, and in a world where, quite literally, no one knows what to do with them.

Attempts to resolve these difficulties take on many different forms around the world. Nonetheless, it's important to keep in mind why the nation-state was invented - for us. To organize ourselves socially, to help manage and define relations with one another, and, with any luck, enable us to move forward, grow together, and share with one another in a progressive manner. We don't owe the state anything - we'll get back from the state what we put into it, for sure, but there's no inherent responsibility to keep or maintain the state at all costs if it is not serving our purposes. For this reason, nations and countries around the world have been broken apart, have changed, and will continue to do so.

Now, nothing against the state here. The integrity of our political constructs is one reason for their success, where they're working out for the people involved...

But we need to keep in mind that the state has certainly not worked for everyone around the world, and as we change we need to make sure we're not afraid to continue to make the state, or whatever form of social organization we've chosen, work for us.

Privacy, security, and sharing...?

Weird how we insist on both our privacy and ensuring ourselves that our lives and property are secure, yet we thrive on each other's company! But it's likely that the former disposition ensures that we can surround ourselves with those of our choosing, so as to feel both safe and socially accepted at the same time. As aristotle said, 'man is a social animal' (or maybe he said 'political'? can't remember...). Despite this, we continually put up walls (both literally and figuratively) so as to prescribe as much as possible specific groups of inclusion with which we are comfortable.

A thanksgiving weekend with family reminds me how important it is to let our guards down and have an open mind with respect to the relationships in our lives. Trying to maintain control, privacy, and security only serves to lessen the experience we bring to one another. Putting our defenses at bay while sharing with one another allows for a deeper more fulfilling experience, and once I was able to remind myself of that I was able to enjoy those around me (despite the busyness and frantic pace of holidays spent with family) all the more. Yet we spend a huge chunk of our lives constructing environments in which we can control our social experiences and tailor them to our own very specific preferences! So don't forget to let your guard down over the holidays...thanksgiving serves as a good practice run in preparation for Christmas. Don't pretend like you're going to get time to yourself have control over the experience, let your guard down and see what happens!

Perhaps that's why I enjoy taking transit so much...I've got no say over who's around me and taking the same bus/train. Yet here our walls are more evident than ever....eyes down, ipod on, shuffling away from one another so as to outline our personal bubbles, which shrink but never go away the more people get on. At least, on the surface, it's an out of control social experience...

Happy Thanksgiving - and if you felt it was out of control, maybe that was a good thing!

Deep Within

Looking deep within, a thought,

a feeling that it's too much,

to try and see what lies within.

But I will try

because I must.

Lest my heart gives up,

on me,

my flesh, bones and skin.