| “It is not creative minds that produce revolutions, but the obstinate conservatism of established authority.” |
 |
 |
 |
| Blog |
| Saturday, 23 January 2010 05:03 |
H.G. Wells (1866-1946), The Salvaging of Civilization (1922) You can download a copy of it from here. Either as a PDF (a big 18.2MB) or browse it online in “book” form:
(I used GIMP to highlight the relevant passage). |
Advertising
blog links
Random Image
Comments
Of course, similar style of writings came out after World War Two by people like Orwell and Camus.
Of course, my view is that they usually ARE acting in the interests of the people that elected them. The people just don't want to acknowledge it. People who insist on living a lifestyle that can only be sustained with expansion of borders and the domination of remote resources are asking for war to be waged, no matter how much they pretend to be kind.
I think the thing we have to worry about now is the "Brave New World" part, not the "1984" part -- that we will be willingly enslaved and enjoy it, rather than have it imposed from outside.
Besides, in a first past the post system (which seems to be many democracies), a minority can elect a majority government - as we see all too often in Canada (like Chretien winning a majority government with only 38.5% of the popular vote in 1997).
It is less evident South of the border, where they only have two political parties, but if they had a viable third or 4th party, then they would have similar problems with unbalanced representation.
People like the "Brave New World" because it is what they are familiar with. People are extremely resistant to change. Look at what happened in Russia after COmmunism fell - there was a strong movement for the good old days of Communism (ok, ok, not that Russia is any good example of democracy - the people have never known any sort of freedom or automomy in their lives, so they feel comfortable with being lorded over).
Except for a few weird mutations (1930s Germany), it creates very stable societies. Isn't that the ultimate goal?
Even if it requires propaganda, mind control, etc to make citizens feel OK with something and that they came to a conclusion by themselves and had a say in the process. And, freedom of speech as pressure valves to allow the pressure to escape without building up to dangerous levels.
Ultimately, it is all about creating a stable society in which people can go about their day-to-day lives in peace. Regardless of whether it's real or not, people believe it is... and it *is* more real than any of the alternatives... and that's all that matters.
Stability primarily exists in autoritarian societies. Iraq was far more stable under Saddam Hussein than it is now. Afghanistan was far more stable under the Taliban than it is now.
Democracy is rarely applied and used in teh world. The military, often considered a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, is hardly a model of democracy - in fact it is very top-down authoritarian. The Justice system, another pillar of democracy, is not democratic.
Democracy's primary virtue is that it tends to be more permissive and tolerant than other forms of government.