“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (The Communist Manifesto) ¹
Marx and Engels were not wrong. In some ways, their forecast of the future was inciteful with the emergence of East Indian and Chinese markets, of trade with the colonies, and of America’s rise and its ongoing industrial revolution. Ironically, America helped realize their forecast with its zealous capitalist system that redefined class structures under a democratic government, but not the communist framework advocated in The Communist Manifesto. From the burgers of the Middle Ages through aristocrats and bourgeoises to our modern-day capitalist Zions—whether Western billionaires or Russian oligarchs—serfs and the proletariat have been transformed into citizens of a multi-tiered middle class, ² but not without its privileged overlords. And that transformation has changed the nature of class struggles, though it has not eliminated them.
Though democracies promise a representative government via a general plebiscite, that representation still depends upon the integrity of elected officials to act in accordance with the intent and general welfare of voters. Therein is an assumption that mirrors Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” by which capitalism married with democracy. Both democracy and capitalism rely on the same premise that humans act in their own best interests and that those interests serve the whole of society. But is that premise valid?
The grasp for power can corrupt just as much in a democratic state as in a totalitarian state.
Most dictators, like Napoleon, Hitler, or Putin, have sought to rule in service of their own interests without the restraints of law, morality, or any substantive consideration for the general welfare of citizen-subjects. They have—even currently—waged unprovoked wars of conquest without regard for lives lost, including their own soldiers. But elected officials in a democracy also can and do fall prey to the same dictatorial inclinations by using the power of office to extend their influence and better serve their grandiose ambitions. Or they can yield to the whims and interests of wealthy capitalists who fund campaigns for the sole purpose of enhancing their coffers with government expenditures and services. This grasp for power can corrupt just as much in a democratic state as in a totalitarian state. The common element is that dark “dictatorial” side of human nature—that immoral urge to serve only self-interests, even to the detriment of others. As stated in a previous blog (reference, “Democracy and the Just Society”), democracy may be “humanity’s best hope for a just society,” but it still depends upon an ever-evolving implementation of its founding principles as the moral pathway to the general welfare of all its citizens. And those moral principles require an enlightened citizenry that both believes in core principles and has the tenacity to live by them.
In America, we pledge allegiance to “one nation under God with Liberty and Justice for all.” And we demand that all elected officials pledge before God their oath to serve our Constitution wherein the nature and ideals of our government are established. Our universal assumption is that such an oath or pledge will assure not only loyalty to the democratic principles at the root of America’s existence but also the general welfare of all Americans. But is that assumption still valid? The word “valid” implies more than mere acceptance. It comes from the Latin Valere, “to be strong.” ³ The question raised here is how strongly do we believe in democracy and our commitment to uphold its principles? Let us review a few current events in the light of this question.
Too often our American ideals conflict with the American reality.
Currently, a very vocal, and sometimes violent, minority in America believes the former President’s lies regarding the fairness of the last Presidential election results. This minority refuses to acknowledge the results of myriad court cases and an extensive investigation by the House’s January 6 Committee. In other words, a notable number of Americans do not accept the validity of a free election, the decisions of American courts in many state and federal districts, and the conclusions of a year-long Legislative investigation. If any American defies demonstrably fair election results, the courts, and his/her elected legislature, then one must question whether that American believes in democracy. And, in addition, any Presidential candidate, including the incumbent Donald Trump, who endeavors to undermine a democratic election, refuses to acknowledge the transfer of power, and incites supporters to “fight or you will not have a government anymore,” is not an American patriot but an anti-democratic subversive and a traitor. His followers can no longer call themselves patriots after they staged an uprising against the seat of government and the peaceful transfer of power under flags touting allegiance to the Confederacy, to the usurper Trump and his duplicitous “MAGA” emblem. Whether they were dupped into believing they were fighting for democracy or inspired into a violent rage over the grievances Trump claimed he shared with them, their actions were anti-democratic, insurrectionist, and illegal, as subsequent court convictions clearly demonstrated. These Americans clearly do not trust, believe in, or support our democratic system of government. Whatever patriotism they espouse cannot be identified with the assumption that democratic principles are valid and that, by their very nature and definition, must serve the general welfare. Instead, they have fallen under the spell of a man besotted with the lust for absolute power. They strongly believe in his ability to serve their interests and address their alleged grievances rather than the general welfare of all Americans. And they represent a significant class of denialists who defy democratically established institutions of government in their quest to form a populist government under an all-powerful fascist-like leader.
This new class of denialists espouses beliefs not only at variance with democracy, but adverse to its unifying principles. The basis for the human rights enumerated in America’s founding documents is predicated upon Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence wherein he declares that “all men (sic) are created equal. . . with certain unalienable rights . . . that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Therein, he prefaced the colonies’ lengthy list of grievances against the British Monarch with a rebuttal to “absolute tyranny” and its rejection of laws “most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” America, therefore, is predicated upon principles of equality and the general welfare of its citizens. Yet some Americans seem disinclined to recognize human equality as a birthright. They subscribe to closing the borders to desperate asylum seekers and to supporting discriminatory laws and practices inspired by white supremacists. The racial nature of this discrimination reveals itself in attempts to limit access to jobs, education, housing, protective policing, lending, and many social settings or environments. And male machismo still affects women in the workplace, in career mobility, in governance, and in the management of their own bodies (reference “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). Even the reluctance to eliminate military style weapons from civil society reveals a moral ambivalence about the most basic Jeffersonian principle, the right to life. As the American press constantly reminds us, mass killings now seem ubiquitous in present day America—the worst cases involving Ar-15s, the apparent weapon of choice for mass murderers. How can we Americans live with the fact that most childhood deaths in America are now reported as the result of gun violence? It appears that too often our American ideals conflict with the American reality. And that reality reflects a people at odds with themselves because a minority of naysayers within the body politic are not aligned with their espoused democratic values and want to impose their subversive will on the majority.
Our union is the main prop to our liberty.
In America, as in any vibrant democracy, governance must depend upon the unity of a diverse citizenry, potentially composed of different races, genders, educational profiles, and potentially diverse cultural backgrounds and/or political persuasions. That unity can only be obtained by a universal acceptance of majority rule, usually assured by a transparent and fairly administered free election. Without free and lawfully executed elections, democracy cannot exist. Likewise, without acceptance of election results, democracy cannot exist. Donald Trump’s incitement of his followers against the results of the last Presidential election is categorically unlawful and anti-democratic. His insistence that the election was rigged—against all evidence to the contrary—is treasonous to America’s democratic system. He may yet be held accountable for inciting an insurrection and be made ineligible to hold any State or Federal Office again. In a democracy, nobody should be above the law, including the President. Every American President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (reference Article III, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America). In addition, as President he is specifically tasked to serve the general welfare of all citizens, regardless of party affiliations, rather than his/her own profit or personal interests.
For the real—and ongoing—test of our democracy is Americans’ ability to support free and open elections and to vote for the general welfare of all their fellow citizens. We can disagree over candidates but accept the results of elections. Likewise, we can disagree on policies, but learn to compromise for the good of all. Autocrats, conversely, cling to power for their own benefit, often blaming scapegoats to justify their use of force or incitement of violence. In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he would designate them among those “designing men” who excite division or “a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.” But if Americans uphold their dedication to free elections and the will of the majority, then Washington’s promise rings true that our “union ought to be considered as a main prop of (our) liberty and that the love of the one ought to endear (us) to the preservation of the other.” Freedom admits diversity, but democracy demands commitment to underlying principles.
Can humanity survive without just societies?
A society that rises against tyranny and declares all its members equal as a birthright will have—and has had—the difficulty of realizing its most fundamental raison d’état. Although America’s Civil War allowed the slaves citizenship, the Hayes Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction and allowed the Jim Crow laws to persists until the civil rights movements of the 1960’s, a century after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Likewise, the women’s suffrage movement finally gained the right for women to vote nearly a hundred and fifty years after Jefferson’s declaration that “all men (sic) are created equal.” What can we learn from these ongoing struggles to attain America’s most fundamental ideals? In truth, a just society—where the welfare of all is government’s primary mandate—is an ongoing commitment and not easily attained given the nature and history of humankind. The recent women’s “Me Too” and “Black Lives Matter” movements are the most recent expressions of angst over America’s laggard implementation and ever-evolving agenda of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” for all. But America’s struggle to form a truly just society where diversity is valued as much as individual excellence or merited privilege is now more urgent than at any time in human history. For we may now be faced with this unwelcome forecast, that humanity cannot survive without the structures of a just society.
The well-being of every human inhabitant of this planet is now at stake.
If the World Wars of the twentieth century have not yet alerted humankind, then the nuclear age of the twenty first century should awaken the nations of the world to the dangers of their current course—that is, the demise of human history. As America swims through the rough waters of white supremacy, LGBTQ/gender inequality, political turmoil, and a revolt against its institutions (the so-called “deep state”), China prepares to invade Taiwan while Russia conducts an unprovoked and genocidal war against Ukraine. Meanwhile, both North Korea and Russia threaten to use their nuclear power to regain “lost” territory from neighboring independent countries. Iran, already abetting military conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine and fomenting internal uprisings, is now actively pursuing entry into the nuclear club. Meanwhile, violent conflicts persist in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Amid this global-spanning violence and chaos, humankind faces the universal threat of climate change. Instead of the nations of the world acting like inmates in an asylum—each occupied within their own self-delusions—they should awaken to the urgent need of cooperative and responsible joint efforts against their common foe, that is, their collective inaction. The effort to build a peaceful world order after the twentieth century debacles must be renewed to face the very real threats of the current century that include both a nuclear holocaust and global climate change. The United Nations Charter, signed in 1945 by its initial 51 member states, was designed to forestall future world wars by guaranteeing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all member states. As membership now approaches 200 member states, it is long past the time to redress not merely the threats to peaceful coexistence of nations but more urgently the broader mission to preserve humankind itself. More than respect for borders and self-governance is now at stake before the threats of nuclear annihilation and of an uninhabitable planet. The nations of the world must come together to assure the well-being of all humanity, which means support for and promotion of just societies where individual lives, liberties, and opportunities are both secured and advanced for all classes of people. How else will Marx and Engels’ assessment of self-annihilating class struggles be eliminated from human history? Otherwise, the “free” world will never convince the inhabitants of rogue states that the hegemonic ambitions of maniacal dictators are not only a threat to their liberties, but to the peaceful coexistence of all humans and to a constructive world order as well. The well-being of every human inhabitant of this planet is now at stake.
What prospect for a better life will we leave for our progeny?
It is frightfully possible that I am writing this blog for a future generation of archivists, shocked to find their world’s dire fate forecasted. God help us all if we leave our progeny such a dastardly destiny. Our forebears ended world wars and created a world order they thought would provide us with a more secure and prosperous life. What prospect of a better life will we leave for our progeny?
_____________________________________
1 “The Communist Manifesto,” The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume 2. pp.1180-1190.
2 A previous blog outlined the uneven course of American capitalism (reference, “American Exceptionalism Revisited”) under its democratic system of government. A companion blog (reference, “A More Perfect Union”) attempted to describe in brief the evolution of American democracy itself.
3 Puer Ille Ut magnus Est et multum valet, M. Accius Plautus, died 184 B.C. (my translation: (“the boy in order to be great must also be very strong.”)