Escaping to the ‘new world’ to escape corruption, greed, religious persecution, and so forth, this image of the ‘fat intoxicated pigs’ which they envisioned as the European ruling class eventually became their own temptation.
As if God Himself wished to test their souls personally and sent in the devil, their greatest trial would be to face the same greed, gluttony, and corruption that had caused them to flee Europe, and then have the strength to refuse such an offer… But money begets money, and the winners would remain.
What’s wrong with corruption? It’s usually a sign that the political system is not compatible with the raw material it wants to govern. Corruption is just the reaction of the raw material against a political order that does not embody its values, that governs it in ways contrary to what the people thinks is appropriate.
There are two solution to rampant corruption. One, you change the political system and make it more compatible with the people’s geist. You come up with a way of governing more congruent to a people, to their natures, values, ways of life. Two, you change the geist of the people to make it compatible with the governing system. The latter involves abandoning age old customs, traditions, family structures and values, wisdom acquired and transmitted over millennia; it involves transforming a people, changing them, to respect the rule of law, or whatever. The former involves a non-democratic way of government–that in itself has become an objection.
It really comes down to whether the political system is valued more than the people themselves. Now, since the western world is incapable of accepting anything other than democracy, you see peoples destroyed, and transformed into flavorless and mediocre modern democrats.
A people has preserved its age old customs to the extent that their political system (by which I mean their democratic political system) is corrupt.
A lot of those ‘mediocre’ politicians are playing stupid, if you’re familiar with the term. I mean, come on brother, you’re talking about that great ‘country across the sea’ where everyone likes to kill each other, the radicals who spat in the face of kings and queens and created more bloodshed as a result than anyone can ever fully appreciate… the source of this country’s politcal corruption runs a Hell of a lot deeper than anything anyone’s ready to openly admit.
The initial part of your comment seems to be getting at some interesting issues, what “corruption” really is, if the mentality of the people is changed what once appeared as corruption might turn into the expression of a healthy state.
It is the ending of your post that I have the most trouble with. The question I feel is important to ask is to what extent is the US (because this is the country particularly under discussion) really a democracy? In the first instance, the “founding fathers”, particularly who wrote The Federalist Papers, had particularly intended to place the majority of power with the wealthy landowners in the Senate and bypass much of the will of the people. This in itself makes it a little sketchy to what degree we can call the US a true democracy (rule of the people).
The second issue regards perhaps more modern developments (though perhaps not with the first consideration in mind). A study was recently put out by Princeton University which examined data about American economy and came to the conclusion that
If the above assertion holds water, it would be more accurate to define the US as an oligarchy. In which case it changes some of the assertions you made in your comment about the government being a will of the people.
Don’t other the mediocre politicians. They are, in a sense, the best [most powerful] of a society–those who can navigate their way to the top. You gotta play stupid to win the popular voice; gotta present yourself in a way such that the rabble can identify with you.
I’m still unclear what you mean by ‘corruption,’ and what problem you have with it. They don’t abide by the rule of law? Few things could be spiritually healthier. Rule of law requires the individual to submerge and dissolve one’s self within the role, the job.
They got a lucky headstart, lost connection with what it means to be human, and for the past 70 years or so have had to hire people to help them appear normal so they can stay in power
What more do you want me to say? They did the best they could with what they were given.
When total absolute freedom wasn’t a possibility anymore, they did the next best thing they could, they gave us the illusion of it.
From 2012 to present, they were nice enough to give us a backward ass backdoor approach to the solutions we actually requested and make it seem like we got what we wanted so we’d remained confused for another couple of decades.
You’re assuming the people have a will of their own, that they’re rational agents cognizant of their own interests and the means by which to attain them. They’re not and they do not. Even a superficial look at history can tell you that. The rabble is given a will they then believe is theirs. Read Shakespear’s Coriolanus for the best indictment of democracy I know of. A democracy is always at bottom an oligarchy; democracy is just the indirect rule of the few by means of the demos.
The problem is the oli are not always the aristoi.
I do see your point though. My argument needs to be more nuanced. Not by much though. Instead of talking about the will of the people, I can just talk about the will of the few expressed through the demos, as their instrument, their mouthpiece. I can still talk about corruption as an incompatibility between the will of a people, understood as an instrument of the will of a few, and a political system.
PeachyNietzsche, I do sympathize with where you’re coming from but I think you have a few things unclear and it will interfere with your understanding. You said that the politicians have lost touch with what it means to be human, and they need to hire others to make them appear normal (presumably speech writers, campaign coaches, etc.)
Your diagnosis of what is normal seems to be based on convention, which shifts over time and geography. The position that xzc is backing is something of a post-Nietzschean view of humanity which views nature as struggles of power, acts of violence, dominance and what have you… Nietzsche felt that Platonism, Christianity, and other beliefs systems engendered a false view of life by projecting moral categories onto the world… ultimately a lot of Christians saw the world as evil, as well as “earthly vanities” which should be shunned and prospects of an afterlife awaited… Secularized versions of these belief systems continued to live on even after they were divorced from divinity.
These belief systems gained prominence mainly as the result of various revolts by the under classes who did not desire a warlike “harsh” life, and this diagnosis is read because they are weak and buckle at the “harshness” of reality, so they have to call reality evil to bolster and elevate themselves.
Nietzsche taught that the reality of life must be understood and accepted, even affirmed, to keep the human species healthy.
That’s a fairly crude description that doesn’t really give it justice, true, but there is something in the thought that at least needs to be dealt with… It is true that there is something we could call “corruption” in human society, because of our expectations and created moral categories. It is unlikely that there has ever been a time or period in which this corruption didn’t exist, and that is the real issue. There is a deep issue within human nature that needs to be understood and dealt with.
Most political philosophers of the past have dealt with this issue in one way or another, usually theorizing how to control and channel those passions to form a society… it is probably the case that when they expressed positions like wanting to keep society stable, underlying it was an attempt to bolster their own power, or even pander to the powers that be… that pandering would probably be because those who already possess power and money have the most ability to provide patronage.
…what it means to be human? Look man, the demos are an instrument, and are in no way representative of what it means to be human. Being unlike the people doesn’t make you less human, quite the opposite. And just because the ruling elites are having a hard time appearing populist does not mean they’re not human. Could just mean they’re not as clever, which is symptomatic of decadence. The oligos can’t maneuver the demos instrument as well. Could also be, and I think it is, symptomatic of a war between the oligos over control of the demos.
I didn’t mean to imply you did or that there was a moral imperative, I’ll explain below.
You make some good points here. My pointing that out was more of a desire to form a complete picture, which is probably near impossible. In great part, many people don’t express a will of their own in any clear sense. I think that a certain portion of the population does, whether that is do to being swayed by variant interpretations of society is trickier to pin down, or whether they’ve discovered certain truths for themselves.
Also, though we may look at morals as merely conventional, I think there is some basis in them that is natural, for certain people, which is not to say they possess power for that reason, but someone who is powerless might find a natural basis in what we call “moral” interpretations, even if the strictly moral content is gone from that interpretation… I suppose in Nietzsche’s language what would before have been called and characterized as a moral interpretation becomes ressentiment. There is the interpretation of resentment against those who possess and use their power to weigh them down.
I’m writing like shit today, I think it’s the terrible cold here is making me brittle.
One problem I might have with Nietzsche, which is hardly a problem in any real sense, is that after society has developed in the fashion that it has, aesthetic categories have arisen that don’t always fit into these categories of natural law… for example, Nietzsche himself makes a few remarks about Carnival (the old European celebration) in affirmative, but Carnival was a celebration that turned power relations on their head, so in a sense it is an expression of slave morality… and even with that fact in mind, I kind of like Carnival (in the old European sense which isn’t really practiced anymore)… true that is just a prejudice, but I think there is also life affirming qualities to our prejudices sometimes… Why always live so strictly? Would such a strict Spartan life truly be the most life affirming and enhancing?
Also, other folk traditions, like the Commedia Dell’Arte which arose from the work of what we consider in modern times buskers, influenced the court comedies of Moliere, Shakespeare, and Machiavelli (The Mandrake Root)… Also, consider that a lot of the peasantry held onto pagan beliefs longer than certain ruling classes.
Maybe I am misreading Nietzsche here, but I do think there is room for a more nuanced society than I see in a strict interpretation of his work — true he did not mean to garner strict followers, to my knowledge, and have his works read like scripture and applied to all issues like happened in scholasticism… it does strike me though that there is a potential for dogmatism to arise out of his philosophy, because it does uncover these indisputable categories (like strength and weakness) affirming the former and seeking to abolish the latter.
I have a little bit of an issue with this. I’m not saying you’re definitely wrong, I just think it should be looked into a little more deeply. I see plenty of cleverness in the elite… Think of Machiavelli for example “a fox to escape traps”…
The Oxford online definition of clever is : “Quick to understand, learn, and devise or apply ideas; intelligent:”
That seems like a characteristic of the elite, and a method to power… and even if it is used “harmlessly” I am not really sure what the problem is with it.
Decadence dfn: “Moral or cultural decline as characterized by excessive indulgence in pleasure or luxury:”
Am I missing something here?
Also, if we diagnose morals as being given by the elite who don’t adhere to them, how can we justify calling morals a decline, if they are just a smoke screen to ensure and secure will to power?
Also, random question, do you think that keeping the masses in the dark about the true power relations taking place bespeaks a strong power, or a decadence and fear in the elites who want to tip toe and not be discovered lest their enterprise become more difficult/messy, etc?
The beyond which served as that for the sake of which became a future utopia with the Enlightenment. And what hasn’t been justified for the sake of that during and since the French Revolution.
This needs some modification. It’s not the will of the underclasses that didn’t desire it–that’d be buying too much stock from the Enlightenment conceptions of man as independent and atomistic rational agent. It is, instead, I think the will of the oligos who arose from the underclasses who then roused and intoxicated the underclasses with moral outrage and indignation by means of fictions of human rights and what have you. Power can now only be wielded by appeal to populism. The real corruption lies with the newly invented need to justify power, to wield it only for the benefit of the rabble, which means having to mask it’s real aims.
Corruption is generally defined as you mentioned earlier as actions outside of the rule of law — being conventional. Most people believe everyone has accepted the conventions of society ( in particular the written law) and so they see authorities using the position of power to secure good for themselves outside of the rule of law as corruption. I used the word as a means of illustration to Peachy.
Your comment about Enlightenment interpretation is well spotted.
I tried to make an explanation of the position being put across by xzc, it’s the 10th post down I believe, I begin it with your screen name. And xzc made some corrections to it a few posts up from this one. It’s not a perfect explication (particularly since it was me who wrote it and not xzc himself) but it is a beginning. If you have some problems with the position or questions you can respond with them.
I’m going to have to give your previous reply more thought.
Plenty of course but maybe not enough to keep wagging the dog as they see fit. I chalk this up to rigidity, calcification, to a mask becoming face. When I said it could be that they’re not as clever [as they used to be] I mean something like they can’t put on the mask they need to put on to instill their will in the masses. They can’t, to be vaguer that I have to be, construct the kind of wooden horse Troy would let in its gates.
I’m using ‘decadence’ in a non-moral sense to simply mean decline in power. In this context it means being less capable of shaping the marble, moulding the masses, instilling in them your will, your values, outlook, interpretation.
The elite tend to eventually get high off their smoke, and become inflexible, rigid, in all seriousness “moral” and thus ‘out of touch’ with the ever more rapidly changing character of the masses. That means they become incapable of blowing the kind of smoke screen they need to. I’m reminded of Odysseus at this point, and his ability to read his audience well and consequently spin the kind of narrative the moment requires to get a ship from Phaecian king, information from his old servant, etc. Flexibility, lack of moral scruples, adaptability, as opposed to rigidity, inflexibility…and ultimately annoying moralizing that’s easy to tune out.
[tab]Think of the republicans. An easy way to see where power is in decline and where it is ascending is to ask yourself which side is moralizing and which side is laughing. You won’t see the equivalent of Jon Stewart on Fox News. There’s a “sick desperation” in a republican’s laugh, as Tyler Durden would put it.[/tab]
It used to be, Fritz says so at least, that when the monarchy was strong and healthy they saw the people themselves as in need of justification; the monarchs saw themselves as the meaning of the rabbles suffering. They saw the people as parasitic on them. After the rabble gained power, the monarchs had to justify themselves in front of the people by having to pose as their first servant, and ended up seeming like parasites, and eventually deposed and/or behaded. Having to keep them in the dark to adequately wield power, which amounts to saying having to pose as a servant to adequately wield power, reveals a lack of power, I think.
Am I the only one seeing corruption as completely seperate from legality? It seems to me that corruption in Government is using political power for a purpose other than what it was provided for, most typically for one’s own gain. This could be completely legal, completely illegal, or somewhere in between.
I completely agree with the sentiment that a democracy is just a poorly-hidden oligarchy. One thing to keep in mind is that we are all, or almost all, the demos with respect to at least some things. There simply isn’t enough time in the day to learn everything: with respect to some issues, we are all of us just doing what we are told, believing what politicians tell us. In other words, the more things become politicized, the less power the people have; when there is one thing the State does, I am well informed on it. When there is 1000 things the State is doing, it is inevitable that I only know about a handful of them. This would be true even if the state were 100% transparent. In the U.S. we are asked to participate in a Government in which being an informed voter would literally be a full time job- moreso, and that’s just the bits for which the information to inform onesself is available.
How do you say if the State is acting according to the will of the people, when the will of the people is to tune out what the State does?