Philosophy and Politics
First, and perhaps the most debated question throughout history, is whether or not power should be concentrated in the hands of a few leaders (centralized) or should it be widely dispersed among the members of society (decentralized). The calls for absolutist governments have defined many great societies throughout history. Most substantial governments that were by any means successful in the past had a centralized government that controlled its population through whatever means necessary. The era of absolute monarchy has all but ended, due to the inherent inefficiencies of that government.
Democratic government, whether in its utopian or republican form, refers to a political system in which the power is decentralized and the masses are given a say in what goes on. As stated before, democratic governments come in many forms – while no absolute democracy exists to this day. Democracy, in particular liberal democracy, has become the cornerstone for most Western nations. The remarkable nature of liberal democracy (whether parliamentary or federalist republic) has made it highly conducive to the free-market system, where the supposed intrigues of democratic thought shift to the marketplace. Indeed, in modern society democratic trends often become interpreted to freedom of the market. While we are no longer suffer the exhaustion of a laissez-faire economics, capitalist “democracy” exists in its most antagonist form – imperialism.
In this era of western democracy, what arguments can be made in support for a centralized government? Surely, it can be understand the virtues of such a government, but are people willing to hand over what they perceive as valuable “rights” in exchange for authoritarian tendencies in the state? The distribution of political power, particularly in representative democracy, has created a society that lacks any true culture, geopolitical legitimacy, and furthermore an exploitative economy utilizing the natural resources and labor of third world nations. Democracy, as perhaps the most vile form of government, creates loose social mores and allows the classical liberal economic forms (capitalism) to take place over ethical work standards, virtue, and efficiency of production.
Centralized government is not an end in itself; but a government that has direction and a goal is what is needed. The free-market system is inherently unethical due to exploitation, and it exists with liberal democracy. Destroying the capitalist system requires the destruction of liberal democracy in all its forms. A virtuous and legitimate government must be willing to control the economy in a socialist manner, and aide the people in their transition to the perfect state.
Thus, we’ve reached our next question: to what ends should organized government be directed? Governments should be the leading force in driving the masses towards a common goal; uniting and formulating a mass consensus that is benevolent in aims towards the existence of the government (therefore the people rely on its continuation) as well as aiming for a virtuous, axiologically pleasing society that is worth the costs and hardships. Certain virtues of society that make it worthwhile have to be centered upon by the government. Economic equality, for one. But as well as a strong national identity that exists within the aims of the ruling party. It should be the absolute necessity of any revolutionary government to take measures to ensure the best interest of a society is met, and willing to take on all sacrifices that may come its way.
The next question is a bit more subjective, but I will attempt to make an objective analysis as best as possible. The question of whether freedom, equality, and security are mutually compatible, or irreconcilable goals is an important one to consider. We must first examine each one individually. Freedom, can be defined in many ways. Western societies have valued their freedom – particularly their freedom to dominate subservient classes in order to extract profits. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion are various other freedoms that most westerners believe they enjoy. However, these are individual privelages that have no merit outside of some abstract mode of thought. For instance, the freedom to express yourself or your religion, no matter how important it may be to you, is still an abstract right that benefits only the individual (or groups of individuals that seek to act upon individual interest). The realm of positive and negative rights are what define freedom and coordinate the manner in which government may interject with the people. These freedoms are not ends in themselves, as they serve no purpose but to fuel individualistic desires – they simply do not exist. Freedom, particularly freeom emphasized by the bourgeoisie, is what allows one class to exploit another in exchange for profits. These are the types of freedoms that are prevalent in Western society, and they have no place in the perfect state.
Equality and security are in fact mutually compatible. Economic equality being the focus. By ensuring economic equality, the perfect state has gained the trust of its people, while securing them through centralized government. Economic focuses on the collective, not the individual, and builds a vast society void of exploitative classes while operating at the utmost efficiency by directive of a centralized government – i.e. a planned economy. Security can be achieved in numerous ways. By offering the working people the chance of economic determinism, the government can also rely on their continued interest in the existence of the state itself. The government must educate and make clear to the public how and why they need each other, as they share mutual interests. Security can be achieved through the acceptance of the government by the people in which they are willing to fight for everything that has been achieved. Furthermore, domestic security is significantly easier to achieve when negative rights are dismissed, and positive rights are kept to a bare minimum. Indeed, only with the dismissal of freedom may economic equality and security of a nation/society be obtainable.
Finally, amongst this list of the most abstract and initial questions of political philosophy, we come back down to the issue of what specific areas of their own activities should individuals retain absolute control. In a collectivist society, the individual must cease to exist to serve the interests of his collective state. In other words, the individual no longer makes decisions to exact his own interests, but acts on the interests of his fellow man. Living for yourself is a facet of the decadent present in which we live. Great nations like the former Soviet Union, the current Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) are perfect examples of collectivist society that have considerable control over the individual – preventing him from acting upon his urge to dominate subservient classes and exploit profit from labor. In collectivist society, based upon socialist/communist doctrine, the individual shall retain only enough control over his life as to remind him that he is still an individual (and satisfy that inner desire for individual recognition) while at the same time must be subjected to vast, pervasive measures by the state in order to remind him that he is not “Jim,” but rather, “a citizen” of the collective state. Re-education is a vigorous process that is absolutely necessary in re-setting the mind of the individualistic society.
In conclusion, these are just the beginning, and further questions and analysis are required in the vast field of political philosophy. Answering these questions and posing future questions has been the responsibility of man for centuries. Organized government is the crucial element that prevents destruction and chaos; the looser the government the more these social ills will ensue. The focus of society has to be centered on achieving the perfect state. Understanding the current state is crucial in recognizing the needs for obtaining not the ideal, but material perfection.
