Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by poisonedresistance, Dec 21, 2009.
do you think is true?
nice video catch...good video presenting...yeah i think some how is true.
Yeah, it's hard for me to argue against anything in that video. :biggrin:
In a way I disagree with the last line "Power doesn't belong to these people (the rich elite) but the people". Yes we do have power, but nothing close to the power of the elite, or those in control of a system. We have power and strength in numbers, but individually we are all but powerless concerning the big issues. We can strike and protest, but it is still the elite's decision to change the matter we are taking issue against. They still hold the power to make the decision. In a lot of ways we are powerless compared to the people controlling the nation, or any other system, because power means the ability to change things, and we have to be given the opportunity to try and change something. We may have some power, but in most ways we are given power, or the opportunity to have it. And individually, we pretty much only have power over our own lives and the lives of our children. So, yes we have power, but the controllers have much much more.
I agree with tobes and disagree with the video's last line.
We have more power in decisions about our life and its path than in the past.
All part of capitalism, but the capitalist elite still rule over us in general.
I suppose the key is to just live your life as free as you can, just get by and forget the decisions of the elite.
Honestly, we're so tied up with bureaucracy and other such shit I'm surprised anyone could fairly be claimed to have power.
Common law justice systems, for instance, have hundreds of years of precedents - who can be stated to have power, since the past rules it? In Canada, our constitution can not be changed; there's a legal framework in place but there is inevitably a deadlock among the provinces, which must consent to any change.
I think there's more power concentration in the US, however, due to the relative freedom in Congress and the presidency (which are largely the domain of rich white men), but they're generally tied down by their parties, which are again messes of bureaucracy, and opposing congressmen (poison pill provisions), and the constitution.
I suppose wealth offers a degree of power, constrained by laws. Generally, stockholders who have some influence over CEOs are wealthy, and the CEOs too are wealthy, and they can destroy or create jobs.
So I dunno. I think power does indeed arise from the people ultimately. Grassroots politics can be a powerful force for change (does it work in the US, I wonder? The firmly-entrenched two-party system seems likely to keep true change from arising, which would make it indeed similar to a fascist system.) A widespread violent rebellion can destroy build-ups of power and return it to the people... And the economic wealth held by rich individuals ultimately derives from the people; with organization they could bring it tumbling down.
I'm rambling, I don't have a coherent point.
Some good points though.
I think we still live in a world of empires, just the economical and political side of it has changed its shape. The rich and the powerful control these empires.
The foreign policy of the leaders of this world is very much imperial, particularly that of the current world leaders the US
That last line isn't a statement of ownership, it is an assertion of rights. An earlier line states "In general, power is still held by the rich elite". Saying that power belongs to the people, is saying that it should be in the hands of all individuals.
I disagree with that too. Give power to the people, and the people will be drunk with it. Everyone would consider themselves a king (figuratively), and they wouldn't respect the systems we have in place. Hell, we probably couldn't even have those systems. It's taken many generations to get the power in the right place, and the system works, to an extent. And unfortunately, we the people have less and less power every year.
Those in power only want more power, and they're robbing us of what little we have left. We don't deserve too much power, but we deserve some.
Everyone's statement holds true to some degree. In the end, the relationships and power structures humans maintain with one another makes the picture far too complicated and ambiguous.
Bureaucracies exist to justify themselves as well as to perform their intended functions. Organizations (think Congress) contain so many different people with individual ideas and motivations, that influence and dominance by one or a small few would be almost impossible.
Plus, we need to account for human nature. Not all politicians or elites are bad people with malicious intent. The fickleness of human nature also means that alliances fall apart, power shifts, and sometimes those in charge get ousted or betrayed.
None of this is even limited to just politics. School faculties, retail stores, families: every social unity has it's own complicated web of power, influence, and intent.